The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search



Kibbitz Listing

Game: Symmetric Chess Log: per31-cvgameroom-2018-230-425
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

White's move 16.B b1-b2 was illegal. Also Black's move 19... b g8-f7 was illegal.

Is the wording of The Bishops Conversion Rule confusing?

Game: Latrunculi XXI Log: j_carrillo_vii-cvgameroom-2018-222-634
Сергей Бугаевский Verified as Сергей Бугаевский wrote on

я не могу сделать ход в партии. нет кнопкти сделать ход

Сергей Бугаевский Verified as Сергей Бугаевский wrote on

я не могу сделать ход в партии. нет кнопкти сделать ход

Game: Falcon Chess RFNB Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2018-176-602
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on

I would have liked to have castled on move 16, for example, f1-i1, but the preset wouldn't let me.

 

Does this preset need to be re-programmed? Also, even though I can castle now, it doesn't seem to include all available options for castling.

Game: Modern Shatranj Log: panther-cvgameroom-2018-90-225
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on

Aargh! Talk about hitting the wrong button!

 

Game: Tripunch Chess Log: judgmentality-sissa-2014-249-564
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on

woops! I typed "end" instead of "won" - my rustiness coming through in the form of faulty commands. Then the preset stopped working and didn't give me the win! Darn!

Game: Symmetric Chess Log: panther-cvgameroom-2018-31-153
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on

Thanks for the game, Carlos.

For future reference, at least for over-the-board tournament standard chess, the rule I believe is that a draw offer can only be accepted upon the very turn that it is offered. Otherwise a fresh draw offer by one of the players is required. I had assumed that this was also the case for Game Courier rules, too, but in any case I'm not opposed to the draw being finalized at this move, in this present game.

Kevin

Game: Symmetric Sissa Log: panther-cvgameroom-2018-31-137
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

Yes, it is checkmate. Thanks to you too, Kevin, for having played. Nicely done!

Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: panther-tim_olena-2018-71-814
Tim O'Lena Verified as Tim O'Lena wrote on

How does one accept a Draw here ???

Game: UC-170-13 Log: sissa-catugo-2018-9-564
Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

I had read your comments, Carlos and I took notice :)!

Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

Yes, the new Ubi-Ubi could be named as cuasi-UU or semi-UU. For now, I will keep calling it with its original name.

If the King could still be in check by the Ubi Ubi if it has just captured any piece, what it means is that the King can not actually capture that piece because it's illegal for it to put itself in check.

I did not understand your last question. Could you please clarify it a bit. To improve what? 

Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

I think it is a neat rule for such a overpowered piece. But the king could still be in checkmate by the ubi ubi if it has just captured so basically for not very crowded boards the ubi ubi defendes everything. The piece you have invented could very well deserve a new name :)! I usually don't look at kibbitz comments as I don't get notifications for it (I porbably do on email but I barelly use that one). Any idea how to improve on that :)?

Game: Granlem Shatranj Log: joejoyce-catugo-2018-7-308
Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

You have answered my questions, Thanks :)!

Game: UC-170-13 Log: sissa-catugo-2018-9-564
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

Aurelian:

Before moving, let's make some considerations.

This variant is still under construction so we have to make some adjustments on the way. In general, I try to ensure that each and every piece retains (as much as possible) the attributes they have in the games from which they come.

Given that White's Ubi-Ubi (UU) from h1 is checkmating Blue's King by h1-g3-e4-c3-a4-b6-a8, I propose that we make an exception to the PREGAME RULE and try to play starting from this setup modifying slightly the UU's attributes: NON-CAPTURING it will move normally according its move rule states, but it will be able to capture ONLY those pieces that in the immediate previous turn had captured any piece of its own, in other words, UU can make a capture only if this capture is a RE-CAPTURE.

For example, in the following diagram:

If White to move, then UUxe8 (a3-b5-d6-e8) would be illegal; but if Blue to move and makes Rxe3 (Rook x Bishop), then UUxe3 (a3-c4-e3) would be perfectly legal. Under this view, the King will always be immune to checks from UU. 

What do you think? Would you agree? Do you have any questions regarding the other pieces?

Game: Granlem Shatranj Log: joejoyce-catugo-2018-7-308
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on

There are a number of two-step pieces in the game. They may take both steps of their normal move, but only once. A piece may not make its normal move, 'commanded' by 1 leader, then make a second move, 'commanded' by another leader.

Yes, a leader must be in a section at the start of the turn for a piece in that section to move.

As for the jumping general, I clarified the language. The 2 pieces which together make up the jumping general are the modern versions of the elephant and war machine, not the ancient versions.

Hope this answers all your questions.

Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

I am a bit confused about the rules of the second game. I think you mean that the leader must stay in that section in order for pieces iin that section to move, but I'm not sure. Also what do you mean by: " No piece may ever be moved twice in one turn ". Aren't the bent shaman and bend here and two others supposed to do just that? Or they do their regular double moves, but not twice the double moves?

Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

About the article with the rules.

In the pieces section the jumping general does not seem properly described. It should move from what I've got from other of your sources like a king, alfil or dababah, but it seems you forgot the king move which is confusing because later you mention one step move. You have once described an alibaba and the second time an KAD.

I understand from the article bent shaman and bent hero have to use one step and one leap in contrast to the more freer zig zag pieces form Atlantean Barroom Shatranj :)! I like the promotion rules but the [pieces seem overall quite weak :(!

Game: UC-170-13 Log: sissa-catugo-2018-6-836
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

The piece on e1/e8 is the Ultima's Coordinator. Such an icon belongs to the Alfaerie Pieces Set .

Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on

Ok, strategy reasons :)! I guess I'll find out :)!

I meant the piece on e file. Does it move like a queen and capture like a king?

I'm sorry for writting "f" previously.

Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

Yes, the first piece to be dropped is the Wazir (from A1/A18) and the first "pawn" is the Camel/Pawn (from S1/S18).

The Camel/Pawn may move like a standard Pawn or like a non-capturing only-forward Camel. Okay? All the 8 Pawns from the starting setup are standard ones so they may make the double step initial move and are subject of being captured en passant. I did not move my "d" Pawn twice for strategy reasons that I can not reveal!

The piece placed on f1/f8 is the most powerful of this setup; it may move and capture like QUEEN and also may move and capture like CAMEL; it is similar to the Amazon; so enjoy it!

Game: Butterfly Chess Log: sxg-catugo-2017-302-001
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on

I believe Black's 18th move with a Butterfly capture of a White pawn is illegal. Refer to diagram on preset of how a Butterfly moves.

Game: Modern Shatranj D Log: erik-cvgameroom-2017-317-652
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on

Interesting position here. "Fortresses" on the king side. White almost looks like he castled.

Game: Great Shatranj Log: catugo-cvgameroom-2017-302-515
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Promotion clarified: * you may always promote to a 'general', the non-royal king * you may recover up to 4 LOST pieces through promotion, 1 elephant, 1 knight, 1 rook, and 1 of either the minister or high priestess * lost pieces may be recovered as soon as the first piece of the pair is lost as there is no requirement for both pieces in a pair to be lost before one is returned to the board through pawn promotion. If you find this understandable and complete (with the original rules-set) then I will add it to the rules. If you still don't clearly see how promotion works, comment in-game or in a kibbitz, and we'll get the language right. And thanks for playing the game. Joe
Game: Petteia XXI Log: louisxii-cvgameroom-2017-255-382
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Glad to see two of the main supporters of Petteia XXI, battling it out in the 'City'! Good luck to both of you! Jose
Game: Viking Chess Log: panther-cvgameroom-2017-235-212
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
Somehow my first move was declared as not legal by the preset, but I was given the choice to try it anyway.
Game: Royal Rumble Log: sissa-wolff-2017-197-573
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

The Ajax Falcon is NOT a leaper, so just like the Korean Elephant must also have the path clear to reach the 2nd diagonal square (labeled 3 on the diagram), but the Ajax Falcon can also move and capture at any square along the path to their 3rd square.

Therefore the Ajax Falcon can stop on it's 1st diagonal square (labeled 2 on the diagram), provided the first orthogonal step is empty; giving the Ajax Falcon the Korean Horse move capability; or it can just move and capture on it's first orthogonal square (labeled 1 on the diagram) in the path of it's Korean Elephant move, just like a Wazir.

Finally the Ajax Falcon has a one 'non-capturing' step in the remaining diagonal directions (red circles in the diagram), like a Ferz, to complete the one-step movement characteristic of the Ajax pieces.

[Diagram and text taken from Ajax Falcon Chess.]

Game: Universal Chess Log: sissa-sxg-2017-160-599
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Sorry! Suffered a kind of Daltonism at the last comment.
Game: wuss Log: sxg-cvgameroom-2017-148-714
Nick Wolff Verified as Nick Wolff wrote on
What 'the attack cannot be blocked' means is that if the Wuss is checked, only the Wuss can move - you cannot use a piece to block it. Makes it a very difficult piece to protect since piece sacs are devastating at times.
Game: Apothecary Chess 1 Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2017-128-703
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
When rule enforcement is added, it should be added to a new preset with a different settings name so existing logs don't break. We then make the new preset the one we advertise so people use it for new games.
Game: Apothecary Chess 1 Log: wolff-cvgameroom-2017-127-093
Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on
Hello guys, Thank you for trying my game!
Game: Apothecary Chess 1 Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2017-128-703
Aurelian Florea Verified as Aurelian Florea wrote on
Hello, guys, and once again, thank you for playing my game. The 12/18 moves rule will be eventually enforced by game courier, what happens with this record then?
Game: Shatranji Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2017-94-628
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
There is a problem with this preset - I'm in checkmate but it's not detected. I tried to enter 'lost' but that is refused as well.
Game: Clockwork Orange Chess Log: wolff-cvgameroom-2017-80-979
Homo Simia Verified as Homo Simia wrote on
A bug prevents me from making any move except 9.Qxd2, 9.Nxd2 or 9.Kxd2. On the screen appears this message: Syntax Error on line 339 The function fL has not been defined.
Game: Sac Chess Log: panther-sissa-2016-289-852
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
I'm not sure, but this may have been one of the closest, most interesting games of Sac Chess played on Game Courier to date. It partly depends on whether it was very promising for Carlos to open up the centre in the middlegame, as my king was the more insecure one for most of the game. By my material values I held a nominal material edge for much of the game. In the final position, Black has the lovely idea of sacrificing his Chancellor by moving it to d3, when if accepted a Black Amazon will penetrate decisive and soon deliver checkmate.
Game: Capablanca Chess Log: panther-cvgameroom-2017-14-164
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
There seems to be a bug with the Capablanca Chess preset. When I moved my king sideways with my latest move, my opponent's king was also moved sideways by one square.
Game: Universal Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2016-363-618
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
My intention was to enter the 'lost' command but finally my subconscious betrayed me... such is life!
Game: Glinski's Hexagonal Chess Log: panther-cvgameroom-2017-6-061
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
Note to shift2shift: I hope you haven't forgotten about this game. Kevin
Game: Rococo Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2017-1-014
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
After the Suicide on a2, the square stays highlighted. That is suspect because after that, it does not let players Promote at all. And it does not permit a second legal Suicide by the other side. This never happens before, and in MOVE PIECES BY YOURSELF, everything works fine in Promoting without prior Suicide (I should test Suicide there then promoting, guessing it will fail). Some different coding is in effect because I recall using Suicide fine in other Rococo games and not affecting Promotion or anything. We want to Draw this one, and may figure out how, because both sides were not able to make wanted moves. It's just this one Rococo game acting oddly after I have played many others perfectly.
Game: Universal Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2016-363-618
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Hey Nick: Your last move is a mistake because after 15... b4xb1 [Hero x Dancing Horse] 16. d1-c1;b1- [Advancer x Hero] the balance of captured pieces will remain clearly disadvantaged for you. Reciprocating the offer you made me at 2nd turn, let's either finish the game by a mutual agreement draw or rectify the wrong move. The alternative move for saving the piece would be 15.Dancing Horse b1-a3. If you choose the later, then I would restore the position replying said move at my next turn. I will go for whatever you elect.
Game: Gross Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2016-345-078
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I just made a terrible move, but that aside, it looked like such a great move that my opponent resigned.
Game: Berolina Chess Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2016-352-959
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
I cannot make my first move because the preset has a bug sending an error message.
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: arx-cvgameroom-2016-346-063
arx Verified as arx wrote on
Oh! I'm sorry. I forgot that catapults move like rooks.
Game: Sac Chess Log: sissa-panther-2016-11-848
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
I've unsuccessfully tried to edit my initial comment on this game. Here is what I had hoped for it to read as: The position in Pacey-Cetina after White's 14th move, Sac Chess game, 2016, looks roughly balanced, and perhaps is the result of logical & best play after the somewhat forcing sequence begun by White's 5th move. By my tentative material values for Sac Chess pieces, Black is ahead by 1/4 of a pawn at this stage. He has early control of some diagonals, and his amazon is deployed, but White is ahead in the race for the open file and has a slightly better pawn structure. I hoped these positional considerations compensated for my supposed very slight material deficit. Later, events turned in Black's favour when each side took on an isolated centre pawn on the same file, which effectively shielded Black's K that was committed to the centre. The pawn structure in question also made White's extra archbishop ineffective, even though it looked very nicely centralized, hitting Black's isolated centre pawn. I kept hoping that I had indeed undervalued my archbishop (at least on a 10x10 board), but kept seeing no real use for it in this particular game. Meanwhile, with the centre secure from counterattack, Black pursued opening lines against the White K with a pawn storm. In trying to keep lines against his K closed, White acquired more weak pawns & squares, close to his K. Worst of all, Black had acquired a superior number of orthognally moving pieces, increasing his material superiority at least slightly, & he gained a decisive bind on the only two open files. For a long time, Black had many winning plans to choose from.
Game: Maxima Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2016-286-853
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Francis Fahys wins this Maxima game. It is recorded wrong. He points out in move remark that there is fourth win condition I overlooked. Maxima has 3 win conditions, lone King, occupying Fortress, and checkmate. Actually there is 4th way to lose, occupying own Fortress. So this is loss for White, and win for Fahys as Black.
Game: Chess on a 12 by 12 board Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2016-287-890
Evert Jan Karman Verified as Evert Jan Karman wrote on
Pls feel free to take the moves back assuming a rook behind is not really interesting anymore.
Game: Chu Shogi Log: evertvb-cvgameroom-2016-283-957
Evert Jan Karman Verified as Evert Jan Karman wrote on
OK dear opponent, something went wrong, I'm trying to take the pawn with my Lion and put my Lion back to its original square - which is allowed for the Lion. But now my Lion is gone. What next??
Evert Jan Karman Verified as Evert Jan Karman wrote on
OK first I had to click the message saying I was to move and then it worked. (??????)
Evert Jan Karman Verified as Evert Jan Karman wrote on
Hello, I want to move the pawn in front of my queen, but whatever I do with my mouse nothing happens.
Game: Sac Chess Log: sissa-panther-2016-11-848
Kevin Pacey Verified as Kevin Pacey wrote on
The position in Pacey-Cetina after White's 14th move, Sac Chess game, 2016, looks roughly balanced, and perhaps is the result of logical & best play after the somewhat forcing sequence begun by Black's 4th move. By my rather tentative material values for Sac Chess pieces, Black is ahead by 1/4 of a pawn at this stage. He has early control of some diagonals, and his amazon is deployed, but White is ahead in the race for the open file and in deployment of his king and its respective rook. I hoped the upshot of these positional considerations compensated for my supposed very slight material deficit. Later, events turned in Black's favour when each side took on an isolated centre pawn on the same file, which effectively shielded Black's K that was committed to the centre. The pawn structure in question also made White's extra archbishop ineffective, even though it looked very nicely centralized, hitting Black's isolated centre pawn. I kept hoping that I had indeed undervalued my archbishop (at least on a 10x10 board), but kept seeing no real use for it in this particular game. Meanwhile, with the centre secure from counterattack, Black pursued opening lines against the White K with a pawn storm. In trying to keep lines against his K closed, White acquired more weak pawns & squares, close to his K. Worst of all, Black gained a decisive monopoly on the only two open files. For a long time, Black had many winning plans to choose from.
Game: UC-170-13 Log: sissa-makov333-2016-271-036
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Critics and skeptics of the feasibility of this game might see it as a test of knowledge about chess variants, and not as a game that is very fun to play.

In this particular case, both players have to know the two important writings 'Nachtmahr' and 'Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon' by Jörg Knappen and George Duke, respectively, to move properly the Quintessence or Essential Nightrider [c1/c8] and the Dragon [e1/e8]. Since the third piece that must be dropped is nothing less than the Lion [Chu Shogi's Shishi], players will have to be familiar with this game too.

Reviewing this starting setup, we see it's perfectly legal because there is no any undefended pawn that may be capturable at the first turn. The pawn on f2 is protected by the c1-Quintessence Nightrider via c1-d3-f2, while the pawn on f7 is protected via c8-d6-f7.

Look out! After 1... p c7-c6, the h2-pawn is pinned.

Game: UC-170-13 Log: sissa-makov333-2016-268-787
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
To avoid that the board be overcrowded, I'm thinking to change slightly the mechanics of dropping pawns. Players will have 5 chances for dropping any pawn [as currently is stated] but now they will be more separated from each other.

For Blue:

1st: the pawn on S1 at any turn between the 6 and 10 (including 6 and 10)
2nd: the pawn on T1 at any turn between the 16 and 20 (including 16 and 20)
3rd: the pawn on U1 at any turn between the 26 and 30 (including 26 and 30)
4th: the pawn on S2 at any turn between the 36 and 40 (including 36 and 40)
5th: the pawn on T2 at any turn between the 46 and 50 (including 46 and 50)
6th: the pawn on U2 at any turn between the 56 and 60 (including 56 and 60)
7th: the pawn on S3 at any turn between the 66 and 70 (including 66 and 70)
and so on.

For White:

1st: the pawn on S18 at any turn between the 7 and 11 (including 7 and 11)
2nd: the pawn on T18 at any turn between the 17 and 21 (including 17 and 21)
3rd: the pawn on U18 at any turn between the 27 and 31 (including 27 and 31)
4th: the pawn on S17 at any turn between the 37 and 41 (including 37 and 41)
5th: the pawn on T17 at any turn between the 47 and 51 (including 47 and 51)
6th: the pawn on U17 at any turn between the 57 and 61 (including 57 and 61)
7th: the pawn on S16 at any turn between the 67 and 71 (including 67 and 71)
and so on.

Game: Symmetric Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-322-173
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Thanks for having played, Erik. Certainly, there is a short forced mate in 3: 37.Kh4 Qh3+ 38.Kg5 Qf5+ 39.Kh4 Qi5#
Game: Sac Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2016-180-161
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I blundered early and lost a Knight for a Pawn at turn 8. I then tried to make up for this by going after stronger pieces with weaker pieces. Since so many pieces are very powerful in this game, it wasn't too hard to target powerful pieces, and the early part of the game included a series of consecutive captures. Finally, I was out of the weakest pieces, and the board cleared out enough for strategic maneuvering without capturing all the time. Although I was still a piece behind, it helped that I was otherwise ahead in material. At turn 46, I pinned a Dragon King (Sailor) with a Dragon Horse (Missionary). Instead of taking it right away, I kept up the pin and attacked the Amazon on turn 48. John blocked with a Pawn, which broke the connection between his Bishop and Dragon Horse, but that didn't last, as I moved away, and he moved the Pawn forward again. With turn 51, I attacked the pinned Dragon King with a Chancellor, threatening to take it without cost or to exchange one piece for both it and its defender. John defended with his Chancellor, and I attacked with a Pawn. He moved the pinned piece away from the Pawn's attack without breaking the pin. Since this exposed an attack on my Chancellor from his, I defended it with my Amazon. John attacked this with his Dragon Horse, which broke the connection between his Dragon Horse and Bishop. After I moved my Amazon to safety, he moved his Bishop to block the line between the two Chancellors. While this stymied my assault on the Dragon King, it had served the purpose of drawing pieces away from the other side of the board. In particular, his Bishop and Dragon Horse had been well-placed to defend against attacks. Now that their formation had been broken up, I attacked his Amazon with my Archbishop again. At turn 55, he blundered with an ineffectual block. I captured the blocking piece, protected by my Chancellor, forking the King and Amazon. Since his King's retreat moved it behind the Amazon, which pinned his Amazon, and it also broke the pin on his Dragon King, I left the Amazon pinned and took the Dragon King first with the Dragon Horse that had been pinning it. After he took my Dragon Horse, I took his Amazon. At this point, I had the decisive advantage of having an Amazon while he had none. But we still had the same number of non-Pawn pieces, and he had enough to keep his King defended. After some maneuvering, we exchanged Chancellors on turn 61. On turn 64, I exchanged my remaining Dragon Horse for a Bishop, leaving his Dragon Horse unprotected and open to attack. From that point, I had much stronger forces and soon won.
Game: Circular Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-291-618
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
Yes, that seems fair. I suspected that something had changed (I could tell in his playing style), but I couldn't put my finger on it. If the impostor took over his email account, said impostor could easily have changed the password and sent the 'verification email'. It would seem that this occurred some months back...
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2013-295-605
Daniel MacDuff Verified as Daniel MacDuff wrote on
Check.
Game: Circular Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-291-618
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Thank you very much for adding my name to the previous comment, and especially for the (incredibly swift) reply. I certainly hope that you are right, but I have to say that I have a bad feeling about this. Almost immediately after the series of farcical moves from Black began, Jeremy Hook himself got the impression he was being trolled (not getting lucky), so much so that he even said so when making his next move. And Carlos has not responded since then, nor has he posted any comment ANYWHERE on the site in at least a week (if not much more than that; I'll have to check). I have just sent an email to Carlos Cetina regarding this. In the best-case scenario, he'll reply within a day or two and the whole thing will be resolved.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I added your id to the previous comment by editing the database. We have the same email address for Carlos as he had a few years ago. If someone has stolen his account he can let us know, but I doubt it has happened. No one can steal a password from the database, since they are all encrypted, and no one can change his password without access to his email account.
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
The comment below this one (posted on 2016-01-03) was by me, Cameron Miles. I have no idea why my name wasn't displayed next to that comment, nor have I been able to figure out how to edit the comment (so as to give my name at the end of it) in any way. What matters most to me right now, though, is that someone sees these comments of mine, and tries to contact Carlos Cetina in some way. I STRONGLY suspect that his account has been taken over by someone else (maybe a skilled hacker, or a thief who has stolen his computer), and that 'someone' is now making moves without his consent. It is, after all, quite obvious at this point that Black's last 6 or 7 moves have had the sole motivation of losing the game as quickly (and perhaps ludicrously/comically, depending on one's sense of humor) as possible.
Game: Shogi Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2015-320-083
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Let's post one more test comment.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Another test comment.
Game: Circular Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-291-618
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
What sort of nonsense is this?! It looks like Carlos Cetina`s CVP account has been hacked by someone with an immature sense of humor. I myself have played a number of games with Carlos, and trust me - you could not PAY HIM to play a move like 49... k b1-c2. There is absolutely NO WAY he would intentionally do that, and I am already 100% convinced that someone else is now making Black`s moves without permission. Carlos, if you`re reading this, I`d strongly recommend that you change your password for this site. And the ridiculous 49... k b1-c2 move should be taken back. If Jeremy Hook objects to this, might there be some way to verify that the move was indeed made by an ``impostor``?
Game: Shogi Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2015-320-083
wrote on
Test comment.
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: joejoyce-cvgameroom-2014-171-191
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
OK. Gracias. Feliz Navidad!
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hello, Carlos, and thanks. I will be happy to pick up this game with you again. You played a previous game very well - iirc, I was lucky to draw, and I have not played any variants since I was last visibly here. I have been looking in on the site, and even doing the occasional bit of editorial work, once in a while. I do not expect to take up more than a game or two at any time, but this design is one of my personal favorites, and you are one of the best players onsite. It will take me a little while to get back into the game, which I had totally forgotten about, as it is a rather different sort of game. I hope you are well. Too many people I knew here are no longer around, and I miss them. Heh, and none of us are getting any younger. (I will be 68 in March.) Merry Christmas, amigo.
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Welcome back, Joe! Let us follow playing this so interesting game!
Game: Shogi Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2015-175-942
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
I suppose neither player noticed or cared that the final position was not (quite yet) a real checkmate, since in this case the outcome of the game was not affected. The game would have ended in similar fashion after: 55. k 9h-8g G*8h (check) 56. k 8g-9f S*9e (check) 57. k 9f-8e N*7c (checkmate) Still, a 'false checkmate' error such as this should be a red flag that the rule-enforcement code for Shogi presets is not quite right, and is worth looking into. The problem is likely to plague many more games if left unresolved.
Game: Knight Court Chess Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-304-075
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
Sorry,Mate.
Game: Amoeba Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-249-441
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
SORRY WRONGG! NO MATE!
Game: Racing Kings Log: avunjahei-shatteredglass-2015-273-781
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
Tried to resign the other game, but it didnt work
Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-920
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
not that difficult
Game: Symmetric Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-263-645
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
OK. Don't worry. Have a nice game!
Game: Hadean Chess Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-253-913
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
Sorry, but I completely fouled up that move. Would you take it back please? Thanks!
Game: Symmetric Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-263-645
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
sorry, I managed to botch it up. if you could take back my move I would be most appreciative. Thanks!
Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-920
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
No experience yet.
Game: Hanga Roa Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-255-695
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
I moved your piece back, because your move was illegal.
Game: Amoeba Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-249-441
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
This is copied from the user's guide: 'To add a space where there wasn't one, you can either add a piece there, which will automatically add a space too, or you can just drop an empty space on the location. You can do this by using the @ sign to represent an empty space. For example, @-a9 would add a new empty space at the location a9. To remove a space, move nothing to it, as in -f3, which tells the program that neither a piece nor an empty space should occupy location f3.' To shift a space you have to remove it and add it somewhere else.
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
How does one move a space after one's move?
Game: Hanga Roa Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-255-695
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
The moves in this game must be typed by hand. You write the move by yourself, for example 'e2-f3; I-f8' for throwing a stone on f8
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
How does one throw stones?
Game: Amoeba Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-249-441
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
I do that for you.
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
Upon reading the rules, I discovered that my move was illegal. Sorry! How does one take back one's move?
Jeremy Hook Verified as Jeremy Hook wrote on
Upon reading the rules, I discovered that my move was illegal. Sorry! How does one take back one's move?
Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-920
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
How easy or impossible it is to catch a lone 'brain' unit depends, I believe, very strongly on the size and make-up of the piece(s) chasing the brain unit. Essentially a brain unit has to be trapped against the edge of the board before it can be captured. This depends strongly on the number of guard/commoner pieces the chasing side has, I think, as they are the ones that interdict a 3x3 area, something the brain unit cannot cross in 1 move. In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to make legal moves with a multi-unit piece?
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
the crucial thing is the endgame. a lone commander will be very hard to chase.
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
The game idea is ingenious. If it works I for my part do not yet know. It could be an esssentially drawish game, as many chess variants are that do not use pawns. If it turns out to work well, though, I would not change anything.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hello, Cameron, Georg. Again, thanks for giving this game a play. Seeing it being played was what inspired me to design Critters: Chesimals III. This series of games has gotten very little play, and I'm afraid it shows. I like the idea (blather on about it in the CVwiki under 'Pond Scum' and related pages) and think it can be developed into some large but spectacular games. To me, the pieces felt cramped on the 'small' 12x16 board. Chesimals II was an attempt to keep the small board but make the pieces livelier and give them a little more room, and Critters is a leap of faith, but in some ways a step back. A step back because I include some playtested ideas from related games which in some ways destroy the idea of a chesimal because unit swapping between friendly chesimals destroys the individuality of each chesimal, making it a somewhat random collection of available units that currently make up 'this' chesimal. But either or both of you may have different opinions, and like the idea of all chesimals moving each turn, and allowing them to swap units around, so they don't block each other's movements. What would you change, and what would you keep the same? Finally, do you really think these games, and their sister games, are essentially drawish? I haven't found that to be the case generally, but haven't played many games, not to judge something like that. It is clear, however, the smallest versions (these games are scalable) are extremely drawish. As they get larger, reality overwhelms perfection, and draws go away, in my experiences with related games. From your in-game comments, it sounds like you've had different experiences.
Game: Rococo Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-148-869
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Thanks, I only used it once in 20 recorded R. games and didn't want to look it up as impure rather than logical experimenting what the programmer would do.
Game: Seenschach Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-149-802
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
We had similar problems with Golden Age Chess on a really big board
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
It's worth noting that Black's 15th move was illegal, and (technically speaking) so was every single move after that, because of the fact that the kings in this game may never face each other across an open file. Personally, I think a situation like this just goes to show that some chess variants (such as Seenschach and other games that are similarly jam-packed with unusual rules and pieces) are simply too exotic to be considered legitimately playable. Not every game that is good 'on paper' is going to play well in practice.
Game: Rococo Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-148-869
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Hello. In case you haven't found this yet (you probably have), the move to enter here for a capture by mutual destruction would be 'h8-g7; @-g7'. This info can be found at the following address: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/rococo.html
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
The slow play is I want to mutually destruct, and it didn't work yet. Once I find the source for how to enter Swapper '-' I will play fast again.
Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-920
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Thank you for giving this game a shot. I would appreciate any comments you might have, good, bad, ugly, or downright hostile! ;) This is very much an 'idea game', and I suspect the idea might be a little better than this initial implementation. I might like to see this done with pieces which have a little more 'oomph' and a lot more room. If you turn the idea around a bit, and start with 1 brain unit and 5 - 25 units, where the units are rated by how far they can operate from the brain unit(s), you can get a better approximation of a one-celled, or at least a unitary, creature.
Game: Hanga Roa Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-935
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
1. If possible move the ariki and throw stones. 2. Try to gain territory and mobility 3. Never answer an attack of the ariki with the matatoa. He can eat up one stone only, while the ariki can thrtow two, so he has no chance. 4. Do not advance your moa early in the game, he will get captured. Advance him only to territory, that is controled by your ariki
Game: Achernar Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2015-161-834
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
You have the columns set to 9. It looks like you want 8. You also need / in the code: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/32/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR
Game: Chu Shogi Log: redpanda-cvgameroom-2015-148-918
Julian Verified as Julian wrote on
Did you mean to do 6j-9g?
Game: Storm the Ivory Tower Log: redpanda-cvgameroom-2015-155-915
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
Julian, you are a crank.
Game: Chu Shogi Log: redpanda-cvgameroom-2015-148-918
Julian Verified as Julian wrote on
You Free King move was illegal.
Game: Mideast Chess Log: chappy-tony_quintanilla-2015-143-153
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
Thank you for the preset, but I would prefer using the .JF for the Wizard the .ZW for the Sorcerer the _JJ_JG for the Jumping General and the GRY for the Griffon, please.
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
Grand Chess rules, since this variant already doesn't allow castling, it means pawns promote to captured pieces on the 8th rank. The Courtier/Zebra gains a one step orthogonal, wazir move. See the Sorcerer in Sorcerer Chess. The Chevalier/Camel is now an Omega Chess, Wizard. The Cavalier is a regular Griffon from the piececlopedia and Grande Acedrex. The Castle/Squirrel is now a Mastadon from Mastadon Chess, it steps one or leaps two orthogonally and diagonally.
Game: Rococo Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-145-831
Julian Verified as Julian wrote on
Did you delete this?
Game: Courier Chess Log: tony_quintanilla-rick_knowlton-2015-143-941
Rick Knowlton Verified as Rick Knowlton wrote on
One question: regarding pawn promotion, do you know if we'll be playing with the 'joy-leaps' to get the pawns promoted (old Stroebeck style), or just promoting on the spot like most chess forms? Not that I expect promotion to be a big deal in this old form of chess. -- Rick
Game: Universal Chess Log: couriermabovini-cvgameroom-2015-142-524
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
White's 1st move is illegal since the War Elephant does not leap.
Game: Universal Chess Log: couriermabovini-cvgameroom-2015-142-525
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
White's 1st move is illegal since the War Elephant does not leap.
Game: Courier Chess Log: tony_quintanilla-rick_knowlton-2015-141-260
Rick Knowlton Verified as Rick Knowlton wrote on
I guess we can comment here as the game progresses. OK, let's start with the standard opening...
Game: Courier Spiel Log: couriermabovini-cvgameroom-2015-119-141
Julian Verified as Julian wrote on
How do Pawns promote?
Game: Camelrider Chess Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-102-657
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
What about to try Camelrider's Quadriga Chess?

If anyone is interested, the preset can be accessed here.

Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-135-676
Julian Verified as Julian wrote on
Don't sabotage it. Please.
Game: Voidrider Chess Log: jejujeju-bruck-2008-30-529
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
35. a8-a9 was illegal.
Game: Opulent Chess Log: couriermabovini-cvgameroom-2015-91-023
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
Seriously! The lion is a half duck it moves one step diagonally or leaps two or three steps orthogonally, an HFD. You seem to understand that in the game you are winning. Why then in the game you are losing do you keep making illegal moves with it?
Game: Cataclysm Log: chappy-avunjahei-2015-123-740
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
Sorry, doesn't sound very interesting to me! I do not like the choice of pieces.
Game: Golden Age Chess on a Really Big Board Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-108-765
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
It won't let me move everything back in one move.
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
It won't let me move everything back in one move.
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
I am not sure how to proceed with this match
Game: Chess Log: couriermabovini-cvgameroom-2015-95-960
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The ratings page currently reports that he has won 12.5 out of 26 games. If he had been systematically deleting his lost games, it would not say that. Also, I see that a game I won against him and four you have won against him are still here. If you know of a specific game he has deleted, let me know, and I will look for the backup.
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
The inviting player deletes games when he loses.
Game: Guru Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2015-102-367
John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
I would like to see pictures of the pieces you are making.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Yes, they can (and only they can at the beginning, but I suppose so should any pawn dropped on the second rank, no? - I'm experimenting here)....

Yes, essentially a crooked queen! Good way of seeing it. It's a Crooked Rook + Crooked Bishop.....

John Davis Verified as John Davis wrote on
Can the d and e pawns make a two step first move. Is that a crooked queen on h1, 8.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
This variant is inspired by Betza's Tutti Frutti and David Howe's Chess on a Longer Board with a Few Pieces Added. I am thinking of using it for my next variants tournament at the Denver Chess Club at the end of June as a way of introducing knight compounds and other basic pieces to people (I will create an extra set of six pieces to hand out so that everyone who comes to the event can take a set of these variant pieces home).

I want to experiment with this by saying [re-edited the following:] captured pawns are allowed to be re-dropped later, shogi-style...in files that don't have a pawn. This only applies to pawns, not pieces.

Game: Golden Age Chess on a Really Big Board Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-101-738
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
h15-h14 would have blocked the check, right?
Game: Coherent Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-97-664
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Sorry by the confusion, I was only suggesting a 2nd version of this variant. Dragon Horse is a shogi piece that moves like bishop or wazir.

If you like to try Coherent Chess 2, the preset can be accessed here.

Of course, I'm willing to play both versions at the same time!

Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
EDIT 'dragon Horses'
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
I'm confused now. 1. I like your game. Why not change as little as possible? 2. What are Dancing Horses???
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
OK. Let's apply it, if you like.

In order to make the gameplay a bit more dynamic, guards could be replaced by sliding generals while bishops replaced by dragon horses.

Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
It is your game, we can try out anything you like. :) But promoting them to Sissas in the way you propose would make the guards very strong pieces. We could try the first proposal, promoting them to 2-sliders. But still, I think, the guards would be worth more than the Bishops now, which is odd, because you have 7 of them. Wouldn't it be better to promote them reaching the last third of the board? One objection here could be: such a promoted guard is a somewhat 'incoherent' piece, contradicting the simplicity of the original game. So why not promotion to queens or sissas by reaching the last rank?
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Thanks. I appreciate your concepts and agree with them largely but what happened was that the basic idea was not exactly to create a game that were fun nor was born from the express wish to design a chess variant. I hope to tell the full story of its genesis some day. Meanwhile, let's explore here how to improve it. What do you think if guards would promote to sliding generals [Joe Joyce's name for the piece that is a combination of 2 guards; it slides 1 or 2 squares; it may not jump; it may change direction during its move; it may not make a null move (move off and then back onto its starting square); it captures by landing directly on an opposing piece and ending its turn] once they cross the middle row and enter the enemy territory? Another possibility is that they promote to sissas instead of to sliding generals.
Georg Spengler Verified as Georg Spengler wrote on
It is always dangerous to design a chess variant without pawn promotion. If you design a game it is important to consider: what happens in the endgame. This game has to be won in the middle game, for the end game is doomed to be a draw, unless one side has gained a really big advantage. A king and a guard will not win against a lone king. And since there is no equivalent for a pawn endgame, reaching the endgame means nothing but reaching a draw. This one is a good idea for a chess variant, but if an idea works and how it works can only be decided by actual game play. It is like a little scientific theory that has to be checked in real life situations. Since the problem is the drawn endgame, I really think you have to make a change in the rules that have an influence on this phase of the game. There are 2 natural possibilities. 1. To introduce some kind of promotion rule for the guards 2. To introduce a second winning possibility, for example reaching the starting square of the opposite king with your own king. Maybe there is also another way that I did not consider. This game is surely worth to work on it, but with the current rule set I'm afraid it is a flaw.
Game: KnightZz Log: sissa-judgmentality-2015-77-802
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Sure... thanks!
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Please check notes in other game for how pieces move.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: shatteredglass-judgmentality-2014-237-084
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Despite your best efforts to help me out time-wise, I forgot to move last night, but that would probably only have prolonged my misery anyway, hehe. You were most likely to win this game and the tournament.

Congrats on a well-earned and well-deserved victory. :) Please email me.

Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
You already know my next move, but for the sake of formality: 28. P g6-f7 (check)
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Next move is 27. Q f5-f7 (check)
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Gah - late again. And the server continues to reject my password when attempting to edit (not sure whether it's worth trying to contact Fergus about it, though). In any case, my next move is 26. P d2-c3
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Won't let me edit for some reason... Next move is 25. N c3-d5
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Well, I'll go ahead and declare my next move to be 24. Q d5-f5 (check) Rather than post a new comment here every day, I'll just edit in my intended next move every 24 hours (except on days when I don't move at all), at this same time of 11:00 p.m. UTC. Hopefully you'll see this in time...
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Jeremy, would it help if I declared my intended move at (say) 11:00 p.m. UTC (giving you ~1 hour to come up with your move)? I only ask this because it now looks as though you'll only have ~30-45 seconds per move from here on out, which is about how long it takes to view an opponent's move and then immediately send a response. This leaves ~0 seconds to think, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of what we're doing (to ensure the game [and by extension, the tournament] is played out to a proper conclusion).
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I didn't see your comment when I made my last moves so I didn't respond til now.

Responding to your thoughtful offer... 'On any given day, I will either move once at 12:00 a.m. UTC (give or take [at most] 5 minutes), or not at all.'

...I won't object to this but neither can I demand it since I made everyone wait for months and months for my moves, for no really great reason other than that I was intimidated...

Best regards.

Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Very well, then. I'd (mistakenly) assumed you'd either forgotten about these games or didn't have time for them, on account of the hundreds of other games you're currently playing, analyzing, developing, playtesting, etc. What I did NOT want was for your unparalleled, near-superhuman contributions to the chess variant field to (potentially) cost you 1st place in the tournament, just because of an accidental time-out. There are certainly some who (perhaps rightly) consider a 'gifted' win on a technicality just as deserved a victory as a truly-earned win; I definitely wouldn't consider myself to be one of those people. In any case, this is all irrelevant if the time situation was in fact an intentional part of your strategy (maybe to squeeze in as much practice/study of this particular variant as possible??). I still hope neither of these games is decided by time, though - Carlos has conjectured that they may very well determine the winner of the event!
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Cameron, thank you so much for the thought; that's very sportsmanlike of you! A true gentleman. But completely unnecessary since time is an essential part of the play and also I've been using it strategically. Play moves when ever you feel like it and if I time out, we can always set up the positions later and play them out for our own post-tournament benefit if we feel so inclined. If Fischer forfeited a world championship game to Spassky on time, I can too. {edited in: Timing is everything!}
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
Forgot to mention one thing - I'll follow exactly the same moving pattern in our other CC2 game (where I have Black) as well. This ought to be enough to prevent a 'cheap' time loss in either game.
Game: Chess with Different Armies: Nutty Knights vs. Duking Falcons Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2015-10-576
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Jeremy for the two weeks I don't see where to accept the start of a game, and thought you were still working on it. Play and Compose and other features work for me, but not the JG v. GD itself? //// It's because you are White in all the games and have to move first?
Game: Cetran Chess 1 Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2014-293-280
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Oh I didn't realize it was mandatory. I'll resign.
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
4... b g8-d5 is illegal, I believe. After 3... b a8-d5, the g8 bishop controls only the f8, g7, and h8 squares (as per the Bishop Conversion Rule).
Game: UC-170-13 Log: judgmentality-sissa-2014-314-037
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Because I think there are simple, elegant solutions that allow us to play more games with pieces like Wusses and Zig Zag Generals and I want to play with these interesting pieces.
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
This kind of problems can be solved easily by applying the Pregame Rule. Why you are reluctant to implement it?
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
re: comments on move one: Yes, but f4 is the only vantage point from which the ZG can't be taken by the opposing ZG
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sagig72-joejoyce-2014-234-175
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Sagi: 16.DH d3-b4 was illegal. Please rectify it.
Game: 2 Queen Rocky Horror Lycanthropic Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2014-275-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Might we give the King the option of moving either two or three squares toward the Rook when castling? I'll let you decide Carlos but if so, you should repeat that in the game so Francis is sure to see...
Game: Nachtmahr Log: sissa-judgmentality-2009-307-856
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Thanks! Well, it seems that what you say is true. Better luck with Knightage!
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Good job, Carlos! I made a classic mistake, didn't I? Moving my king into the center too early.
Game: Ultima Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2014-257-883
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Francis, it seems you really have a talent for playing Ultima well. Have you tried your hand against Matthew Montchalin?
Game: Nachtmahr Log: sissa-judgmentality-2009-306-803
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you, Carlos! Very nice diagram. You are advancing my perception on this intriguing matter. I like the knight-camel alternating idea. Give me some time and I will have some more feedback for you.
Game: Nachtmahr Log: judgmentality-sissa-2009-209-125
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
True: Black's Rose wouldn't threaten the white nightrider. When I wrote that, I was still misunderstanding the Rose's move and prone to award Rose an occasional (normal) nightrider movement which [the rose] never gets. Thanks for the accurate correction!
Game: Nachtmahr Log: sissa-judgmentality-2009-306-803
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Diagram can be seen only in the Kibbitz Listing page not in the log game.
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
The 3,4 trajectory would not be generated by any successive knight leaps but by alternating knight-camel jumps, so the label for that rider could be NCNC. How woud you name it?

The following diagram shows all possible routes the quintessence may run starting from r18:

We can see that there are 8 'pure' and 8 'impure' trajectories. The first are indicated by guards of a same color. The second by a mix of guards and wazirs. For example, the guard-wazir-yellow path starts from r18 then follows by GU_r s20 - GU_y q21 - W r23 - GU_y p24 - W_y q26 - GU_y o27 etc. Note that white wazirs are a sort of hinges.

What do you mean for 'more limited quintessences'? Would the above two classes fit in the idea you have in mind?

Game: Nachtmahr Log: judgmentality-sissa-2009-209-125
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
True, we both overlooked said check but the nn was not double attacked after e3-e4 because the rose could not reach d1 from e7 since its right route is e7-f5-e3-c2-a3.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
We both overlooked that Black checks White with his fifth move, a check which goes unguarded. [edit:] I think if White attempts to block via d3-d4, the nightrider on d1 is then double attacked by black's nightrider (nn) and rose and could be lost...
Game: Nachtmahr Log: sissa-judgmentality-2009-306-803
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
My comments in my notes for re-entry of sixth move aren't quite accurate - need to be refined and I'm struggling with how to do so - and they also ignore the 3,4 trajectory...are there other types of more limited quintessences that might be created based on the main one's different trajectories?
Game: NukeT Log: joejoyce-microstackgames-2014-248-807
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Goodness gracious, what is this!? Heehee. Looks vaguely familiar. Joe, you iconoclast you.
Game: 2 Queen Rocky Horror Lycanthropic Chess Log: sissa-judgmentality-2014-251-483
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
The only reason I suggested, in my comments to my move, delete it after we are through is simply so it won't be on the same logs page as others titled by the same name 2QRHLC games...
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-joejoyce-2014-234-175
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Thanks!
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Congrats, Carlos! :-)
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-leopold_stotch-2012-147-825
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
One might well argue that the sissa is the most powerful piece in Cetran Chess. If Queen is equal to a marshall / chancellor on an 8 x 8 board (as many argue) then a knight-rider / rook piece with varying routes that give it a semi-jumping status and many forking abilities should be more powerful than a queen. In the one endgame you played here where a queen was matched against a sissa, the queen was no match for the sissa.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: leopold_stotch-sissa-2012-340-102
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Yes, 48.b6 is the appropriate move. Since white has a material advantage of 2 units, playing rightly he should win easily. 48...axb6 is forced and, after 49.Nxb6, white should try to promote the a-pawn combined with tactical threats to the black king. This game, despite some oversights by both sides, has a remarkable educational value because you can learn how to maneuver the sissa and take advantage of its peculiar way of movement. Let's see how black loses immediately if he refuses to exchange pawns at turn 48th. Hereinbelow I will use the well-known algebraic notation. 48...Sxa4 49.bxa7 Sa6 (a4-c6-a6) The black sissa menaces to capture the a7-pawn and keeps off it promotes. With a beautiful sequence of 3 checks, white forces the promotion. 50.Se7+ Kh8 (unique; h7 is covered by the white sissa via e7-h4-h7) 51.Sxf7+ Kg8 (unique) 52.Sg5+ (g5-d8-g8) Now, if 52...Kh8, then 53.a8=Q+ Sxa8 54.Sxa8 (g5-d8-a8) or 52... Se8 [(a6-c8-e8) obstructing the check but allowing the promotion] 53.a8=Q, etc.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I didn't see that. :) 48. b6 maybe?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-leopold_stotch-2012-208-813
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
If the preset would have enforced the rules, we would not be talking about the oversights at moving the sissa. I should have announced check when moved 21.S c5xe6; neither Jochen nor me saw this and therefore 21... c b6xc4 22.Q d2-f2 c c4-c6 were illegal. Black should announce check on turn 34... s e8-a6. I do not remember whether I saw it or not, but the fact is that 35.R c5-b5+ was a fortunate move blocking said check and at the same time checking the black king. Answering your question, Jeremy: yes, black could/should exploit the pinning of the white rook by moving 37... c7-c6 instead of 37... r d8-e8, winning the rook. Also on turn 39... p c7-c6, instead of 39... S a6-a3+, would have forked both rook and sissa.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: leopold_stotch-sissa-2012-340-102
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
I don't think so. If 47.S e5xa7, then 47... s c2xc5 (c2-f2-c5), losing the knight without any compensation.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
47. S e5 x a7 maybe?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-leopold_stotch-2012-208-813
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I'm looking at black's 37th move and the fact white's rook is - and has been - absolutely pinned via Black's sissa (a check earlier may have gone unnoticed in fact)...could / should black perhaps try to exploit this (or later or earlier)?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-leopold_stotch-2012-147-825
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
No, Black is not worse off here. After 11... p b7xa6 12.DH g2xa8 s f8xa8 (f8-f3-a8), he could continue fighting and even win the game. Many of the games I played with Jochen were under blitz timing, hence they have many oversights like this.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
It's not even clear to me that Black is worse off when he resigns here. What does anyone think? Is Black worse off here? If so, why?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-frozen_methane-2010-174-915
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Black's 3rd and 4th move are identical? Erm never mind. :(
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: makov333-sissa-2009-252-843
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
26. P c4-c5 is illegal, is it not? Because it opens up a path for Caissa to checking the king, thus self-checking. Oh, never mind, I see this was noticed and rectified during play...
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: maeko-makov333-2009-139-899
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
True. He still is in check at the same time by three paths: d4-f4-d2 / d4-f2-d2 / d4-b4-d2. Since there is no piece that could block them, the king should move to c1 or e1. When I congratulated Vitya, did not revise the entire game move by move and hence missed such a detail that happened at turn 33 not 31.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-makov333-2009-177-738
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
It's quite legal. The route is b5-f5-b1. Note that it's not check since a2 and b2 are occupied.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
21... s b5-b1 - this move is illegal, is it not? By what legal route does this happen? Oops - never mind - I see the route is b5 - f5 - b1! :-)
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: maeko-makov333-2009-139-899
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
When White moves 31. K d1-d2, is he not still in check from the Sissa?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-shatteredglass-2014-8-981
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Cameron:

Quoting you.

'I'd be curious to hear any thoughts/analysis you might have for the CC2 game that we recently finished (about 4 weeks ago). It was quite a long game, and a lot happened in it. I already mentioned the blunder at move 43 as the last opportunity that I missed, but I'm sure I misplayed some earlier positions as well. It took far too long for me to complete development (the Black queen was a particularly useless, passive piece), and by the time I came close to doing so, there were too many threats piling up, leading to an unpleasant, defensive position.' [shatteredglass-sissa-2014-185-035]

'I really cannot say enough about the sheer diversity that is added to this game by the randomized and asymmetrical opening setups, combined with having 7 distinct major pieces. Each game seems to have its own unique 'feel', which is especially pronounced in the opening and early middlegame but continues to influence the strategies of both sides as the game progresses.' [sissa-shatteredglass-2013-355-674]

Peculiarities of this variant you point out determine that some basic notions of chess [like development of pieces] are not fully applicable here. From the first move players face the enormous challenge of finding the best strategic plan, and move after move they are the architect of their own destiny. So, I don't think the Blue queen was a particularly useless, passive piece.

In general, the game elapse more or less equaled until 28... p d6-d5? that cost to Blue one pawn. It was better 28... p h7-h5.

Another history would have been after 43... a c5-a3 44.C h1-d1 p h7-h6 45.K e2-f2 r a8-a6 46.R b6xa6 c c7xa6 47.K f2-g3 a a3xc4 48.P d3xc4+ c a6-d6, etc.

After 1.P b2-b3, Blue could have chosen a different strategic plan by moving 1... p e7-e6, with the idea of replying 2.DH c1-b2 dh d8-f6 or 2.DH c1-a3+ dh d8-e7.

Game: Grand Cavalier Chess Log: gyw6t-cvgameroom-2014-124-533
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Something has gone wrong with the time controls. They were set to 30 days spare time and 30 days extra time, but after I moved, Chuck Lee had only 30 seconds to move and soon lost on time. I will look into this, maybe tomorrow. I will eventually delete this game, but I wanted to leave notice about what happened for a while.
Game: Gryffon Chess Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2014-112-890
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/griffon.html
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
How does the Gryffon move? There is no description of the game here, and the link to the rules just goes to the rules for Chess.
Game: Alice Chess Log: rosuav-cvgameroom-2014-59-670
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The problem is now fixed. The stalemated subroutine for Alice Chess had a bug in it that moved the Rook from D1 to D2 while checking its legal moves.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
14. K e1-d1 is an illegal move, because the Rook is at D1. The mystery is why the Rook suddenly showed up at D2 instead of D1. I followed your game move by move, and the Rook appeared on D1 up until the last move, when it suddenly appeared on D2 without being moved.
Game: Amalgamated Chess Log: james-shatteredglass-2014-69-289
James Gryphon Verified as James Gryphon wrote on
Wanted to mention one thing -- the final update that I sent to the admin to post up has one difference from the rules I told you. It occurred to me at the last minute that a King can checkmate a Prince by itself, so I changed the King's value to 3 (which is more than the 2.5 compensation Black gets). This only affects scoring, and shouldn't have any significant impact on the first stage of the game. It's up to you whether you want to use the old value we agreed to going into this game, or the new value of 3. Other than that, everything should be as we talked about on the A.C. comment page.
Game: Alice Chess Log: rosuav-cvgameroom-2014-59-670
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
The preset appears to be bugged, as 14.K-D1 is indeed a legal move. Of course, 14...q-G1 would be checkmate on the next move, so (fortunately) the outcome of the game wasn't affected.
Chris Angelico Verified as Chris Angelico wrote on
Hmm. Why can't I move the king to D1?

Oh well. Good game!

Game: Chinese Chess Log: yeinzon-cvgameroom-2013-363-661
Daniil Frolov Verified as Daniil Frolov wrote on
Oops... What a bad move i made. -__\\
Nevermind, punish me for carelessness.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-shatteredglass-2013-355-674
Cameron Miles Verified as Cameron Miles wrote on
EDIT: The last part of my comment for move 18 is now out of date. Daniil Frolov has accepted the open invitation for 'Cylindrical Cinders vs. Meticulous Mashers' referred to in that paragraph. Of course, there are plenty of other armies and match-ups for CwDA that are still unplayed, and that I would like to try out (such as the Spacious Cannoneers vs. one of the more standard armies).
Game: Monkey King Chess Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2013-320-336
Daniel MacDuff Verified as Daniel MacDuff wrote on
I seem to have made a mistake and now I cannot access the game. I will start a new one.
Game: Caïssa Britannia Log: gyw6t-cvgameroom-2012-205-599
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
They appear fine to me.
Chuck Lee Verified as Chuck Lee wrote on
The pieces on the Board are all messed up.There is a bug. Please fix this ASAP.
Game: Noble Wing Chess Log: joejoyce-catsmas-2013-45-139
Mark Simpson Verified as Mark Simpson wrote on
Rules for NOBLE WING Chess - Standard chess pieces, standard moves, APART from the following:- Queens Bishop ( ARCHBISHOP ) Moves and takes as standard Rook, with option of moving ONE square in ANY direction instead - thus able to change from black to white and back later if needed. NO taking permitted with the move option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this option. Queens Knight ( BARONKNIGHT! ) moves and takes as standard Knight, with option of moving ONE square in ANY direction instead. NO taking permitted with this move option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this option. Queens Rook ( EARLROOK ) moves and takes as standard Rook, with option of moving UP TO FOUR squares DIAGONALLY instead. NO taking permitted with this move option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this option. PAWN PROMOTION - As in some other variations, promotion can only be from a choice of LOST pieces. CHECK and CHECKMATE - same as standard chess, BUT with the inclusion of the moves from the above mentioned three variation pieces. Mark Simpson
Game: Pawnless vs. Pawnful FIDE Log: centipede-cvgameroom-2012-236-911
(zzo38) A. Black Verified as (zzo38) A. Black wrote on
Can pawns promote into queens in this game? How far does the pawn on the first rank move?
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-leopold_stotch-2012-162-809
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

White to move.

The rook on d2 is obstructing the sissa's checking path d1-d4-a1. It is SEMI pinned. Rg2, Rf2, Re2 and Rc2 are illegal moves; but Rb2, Rd3 and Rd4 are legal since the rook itself obstructs the checking path. On the d column the illegality begins at d5 and follows to d6 and d7.

Might White make Rxd8+? Is the movement of the pieces on the board an untimed, instantaneous action? Or like in the real world they spend some time to go from one another square?

The position is taken from this game: sissa-judgmentality-2009-182-888

Game: Alice Chess Log: leopold_stotch-cvgameroom-2012-142-819
Thom Diment Verified as Thom Diment wrote on
Many many offensive tactical opportunities in this game, but it's so hard to defend from them. I don't remember being beaten so badly at this game since I first played it. Care for a rematch?
Game: Episcopal Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2012-116-101
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Symmetry hasn't made this game any better than Chess. Altogether, it seems more awkward.
Game: 123456 Chess Log: nwolff-cvgameroom-2011-95-172
(zzo38) A. Black Verified as (zzo38) A. Black wrote on
Are you going to continue to play this game?
Game: Seirawan Chess Log: cerebralassassin-cvgameroom-2011-348-051
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
This game is over and Palladino ran out of time but the opposite is recorded. I was White and made the last move of the Knight, and days later Palladino ran out of time as Black. So the recording result is wrong. I made all the White moves in the log, and he made all the Black moves in the log.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Timed out, but not recording it.
Game: Rococo Log: tchervenkov-cvgameroom-2011-345-534
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
I won't move until tomorrow to check again. Refinement: the only pieces being moved several turns are the two Pawns and the Immobilizer. Immobilizer was twice on e3. When 25 I-e3, the Pawns are at e5 and f4. When 27 I-e3, the Pawns are at g4 and f4. Those are two different positions. So moving next again 'I-e3' duplicates move 27 for only second repetition. The Immobilizer is free to move there again.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Please check for sure before we decide. To Todor Tchervenkov: After move 25 of White 'Immobilizer to e3', Black Pawn is at f4. After move 27 of White 'Immobilizer to e3', same Black Pawn is at g4. The rule of Rococo is agreed that upon a move causing or making a careless third repetition of exact same position, that is Loss for the side moving. I think now if I move Imm. back to e3, Black has to find a different move than to g3... The pairing of Imm. on e3 and the Pawn g3 would be first instance of a third repetition.
Game: Rococo Log: gyw6t-cvgameroom-2011-299-946
Chuck Lee Verified as Chuck Lee wrote on
George Duke, Re: Rococo game Please check your email. I have query about Swapper adjacent move. Kind Regards, Chung Lee
Game: Tenjiku Shogi Log: kokosz-lionhawk-2011-266-414
Colin Adams Verified as Colin Adams wrote on
The game is actually lionhawk as black and kokosz as white. Despite what the log says.
Game: Chinese Chess Log: gyw6t-cvgameroom-2011-101-937
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Going by the rules of Chinese Chess as they are described on this website, the Blue (Black) player who keeps checking the Red player with his Chariot should break off the perpetual checks. There is no draw by perpetual check in Chinese Chess. To prevent draws of this kind, perpetual check has been forbidden in Chinese Chess. If the Blue player thinks this is not correct, he should cite a source more authoritative than this website.
Game: Joe Joyce Hyperchess Log: joejoyce-cvgameroom-2011-164-998
xeongrey Verified as xeongrey wrote on
I think I learn better when I made a move and you tell me whether I did mistakes or not... anyway how you add comments after the move?
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: viranga-das-2011-29-537
David Stow Verified as David Stow wrote on
Does this comment work?
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: gyw6t-cvgameroom-2011-44-724
Abe Anon Verified as Abe Anon wrote on
Sorry, I just made an illegal move, and I didn't know that such a move would be accepted. Make some move, and then I think I will be able to take it back two moves, but I can't change anything now it seems.
Game: Janggi Log: facteurix-seikkon-2011-30-951
Julien Coll Morat Verified as Julien Coll Morat wrote on
(deleted)
Game: Chinese Chess Log: kalroten-cvgameroom-2011-3-450
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
I wish you good luck in this noble game, which has existed in its present form for more than 1,000 years. /Mats
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: szutshi-viranga-2010-338-476
Samar Zutshi Verified as Samar Zutshi wrote on
I received your comment and decided to try one in response.
Game: Seirawan Chess Log: whizzinater-cvgameroom-2010-259-697
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

There are two ways to make your move. Joe Joyce wrote:

'You've gone into the game 'the wrong way'. Either click on the link in any of the email notifications you received that it was your turn, or go to 'what's New' at chessvariants.org, click on the top item there - the most recent game courier move. This will take you to the Game Courier logs page. Enter your name and password there, and submit. When your list of games comes up, click on your name rather than the game log itself, to get to the game.'

Game: Great Shatranj Log: joejoyce-francoistremblay28-2010-266-124
Francois Tremblay Verified as Francois Tremblay wrote on
Oh weird. It works now! Thank you. And now of course I went and did a very stupid move. lol
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
You've gone into the game 'the wrong way'. Either click on the link in any of the email notifications you received that it was your turn, or go to 'what's New' at chessvariants.org, click on the top item there - the most recent game courier move. This will take you to the Game Courier logs page. Enter your name and password there, and submit. When your list of games comes up, click on your name rather than the game log itself, to get to the game. I think that's right. Any problems, let me know.
Francois Tremblay Verified as Francois Tremblay wrote on
Those boxes are gone. Now all it has as fields are: White, Black, View (moves), Piece set, Orientation and Background. There is no field for me to enter my information.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Make sure your username and password are typed into all the boxes required. That's the first thing to check. I'm assuming you haven't changed your password or anything like that.
Francois Tremblay Verified as Francois Tremblay wrote on
I don't know why, but Game Courier doesn't recognize me any more! How do I log in??
Game: Seirawan Chess Log: whizzinater-cvgameroom-2010-259-697
Gary Fleshman Verified as Gary Fleshman wrote on
Whoops, please disregard the last comment. I solved the problem. I didn't realize that the site would send me an email and that I have to move by going through my email to the site.
Gary Fleshman Verified as Gary Fleshman wrote on
Hi. This is my first game on this site. I can't get the move entered. I did some practice moves before I started this game and it worked fine, but this time there is no response when I try to put my cursor in the blank and enter the move. what do I need to do? Thanks
Game: Omega Chess Log: ology-deepgreene-2010-229-814
Michael Greene Verified as Michael Greene wrote on
Wizards... I hate them. :)
Game: Alice Chess Log: bobo-qilin-2010-229-184
Boris Izrayelit Verified as Boris Izrayelit wrote on
Didn't think of that, actually.
Game: Omega Chess Log: ology-deepgreene-2010-229-814
ology Verified as ology wrote on
Oops, I could have checked with the bishop.
Game: Seirawan Chess Log: steelhead-cvgameroom-2010-230-751
Rob Brown Verified as Rob Brown wrote on
Hi there!
Game: Omega Chess Log: ology-deepgreene-2010-229-814
waller Verified as waller wrote on
Those wizards are tricky!
Game: Hexcetran Log: sissa-makov333-2010-111-006
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Instead of 'outward' I mean 'forward'.

Aanca's legal moves from f6:
1)f6-f7-g8-h9
2)f6-f7-e9-d11
3)f6-g6-i5-k4
4)f6-g6-h7-i8
5)f6-g5-i4-k3
6)f6-g5-h3-i1
7)f6-f5-e4-d3
8)f6-f5-g3-h1
9)f6-e6-c7-a8
10)f6-e6-d5-c4
11)f6-e7-d9-c11
12)f6-e7-c8-a9

Gryphon's legal moves from f6:
1)f6-g7-h7-i7-j7
2)f6-g7-g8-g9-g10
3)f6-h5-i4-j3-k2
4)f6-h5-i5-j5-k5
5)f6-g4-h3-i2-j1
6)f6-g4-g3-g2-g1
7)f6-e5-e4-e3-e2
8)f6-e5-d5-c5-b5
9)f6-d7-c8-b9-a10
10f6-d7-c7-b7-a7
11)f6-e8-e9-e10-e11
12)f6-e8-d9-c10-b11

Game: TessChess Log: benr-kaschul-2010-194-100
Ben Reiniger Verified as Ben Reiniger wrote on
Oops, didn't see this comment :P Bishops get 2&4 dimensional moves, Rooks 1&3. Pawns don't get an initial two-step. Kings and Queens get to move in any direction. I was thinking no fortresses for now. The rest of your notes are correct.
Schultz Verified as  Schultz wrote on
I am so excited to see this! I don't check my isu email very often as i have graduated, but I will continue to check it periodically... Want to agree on the rules we will follow? I assume we are doing the basics, p-<1,0,0,0> FORWARD ONLY (2 on first move) <1,1,0,0> to capture (a forward and a lateral move) B- or for k between one and four R- or Kn-<2,1,0,0> Q- or k,k,0,0> or or k-<1,0,0,0> Or would you rather a fortress? I think this follows closer to real chess to limit the king this way... Note: Any piece must get to the destination by a strait line and can not move through any piece, and so on? Order of dimensions does not matter to any piece other than the pawn? Anything else I missed? Do we need any other adjustments? I haven't played since we used to (yeah almost 2 years ago)
Game: Korean Chess Log: totonno-cvgameroom-2010-185-857
Barra Antonio Verified as Barra Antonio wrote on
Hello Jose! I've received your invitation, but i've refused because i haven't yet read instruction of Random Korean Chess
Game: Eurasian Chess Log: flowermann-cvgameroom-2010-158-500
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
There was a discrepancy between the time left reported on the logs page (which was four days), and the time left measured by Game Courier itself (less than zero seconds). So I lost on time due to a bug, and I now need to figure out whether the mistake was on the logs page or with Game Courier.
Game: Korean Random Chess Log: j_carrillo_vii-totonno-2010-191-677
Barra Antonio Verified as Barra Antonio wrote on
Oh no, thanks! I'm a little busy! But thanks for the offer
Game: Korean Chess Log: totonno-cvgameroom-2010-185-857
Barra Antonio Verified as Barra Antonio wrote on
Hello Jose! I live in Poland but i'm Italian.
Game: Hypermodern Shatranj Log: lunaris-crazytom-2010-91-137
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Does the preset announce a draw due to stalemate before the final move is submitted? I hadn't thought about that. But I was careful to avoid stalemate, most notably when capturing the white rook: taking with the king was fine while taking with the elephant would have been stalemate. In the final position, I believe Black has mate in three: 79. Kh3 Kf3 80. Kh2 Rc1 81. Kh3 Rh1# There were some key mistakes by both sides, but all in all it was a good game, well fought from start to finish.
Game: Korean Chess Log: tkr101010-freakat-2010-153-049
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Now then, Phoenix...I thought you had grown weary of this site. Kidding. It's good to see you here. I'm sorry about my abrupt disappearance from Richard's. I had me some of them troubles. Care to play 2 games- one of my choosing, and one of yours? (No Ultima, though...I'm not terribly smart ...and no 4 dimensional games...again, I'm not smart enough).
Game: Eurasian Chess Log: fergus-crazytom-2010-128-843
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Yes, that Vao was a strong piece that I couldn't manage to get rid of. I think it was a mistake to put my King on g9, as there was just too much danger on the 13-h10 diagonal. It was also a mistake to move my Queen off of that diagonal; I was trying to find some offensive activity, but this move weakened my position too much. I didn't realize that checkmate was coming immediately (though I knew it couldn't be far off), since i9 appeared to be guarded according to standard chess optics. Unfortunately I can't make any similar excuse for failing to anticipate the knight fork. I like Eurasian Chess, even though I have trouble playing it well. Even very early in the game one has to be alert for attacks by the Cannons and Vaos, and I think in each game I've managed to get myself into trouble by playing what seemed to be sensible developing moves. Perhaps I'll improve after the publication of the first book on EC opening theory....
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I like how the final position in this game shows the power of the Vao, which can become the weakest piece in the game in a more bare endgame. Although the Vao isn't protecting the Queen like a Bishop would, this position would not be checkmate if I had a Bishop on c3 instead of the Vao. The Vao prevents the Queen's capture by the Rook, because the Rook would become a screen for the Vao to capture the King if it captured the Queen. Basically, capturing the Queen would leave the King in check, because the Queen is a screen for the Vao, and capturing the Vao would leave the King in check from the Queen. Earlier in the game, I moved the Vao into a diagonal with Black's King, Queen, and other pieces, knowing that this should eventually pay off. It did pay off after the Queen moved out of the diagonal and my Knight captured the Pawn. After that, Black should have captured the Knight, allowing me to take the Bishop and the Vao. But Black left the Knight alone, leaving it free to fork the King and Queen. After that, it wasn't difficult to move toward checkmate.
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2010-123-277
Linn Russell Verified as Linn Russell wrote on
Not exactly sure... I have only moved the white then the red rooks over the last couple moves...
Linn Russell Verified as Linn Russell wrote on
Not exactly sure... I have only moved the white then the red rooks over the last couple moves...
Game: Hexcetran Log: sissa-makov333-2010-111-006
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Yes, Nick. Thank you!
Nicholas Wolff Verified as Nicholas Wolff wrote on
Just trying to understand the sissa on this board. Is the white king checked by the sissa, here?
Game: Ajax Orthodox Chess Log: fergus-lunaris-2010-59-176
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I was fully expecting to lose this game, since Armin had a huge lead on me in material, but I tend to stubbornly refuse to resign from games, even when I'm seriously behind, and it sometimes pays off, as it did in this game, which I won despite being a Queen and three Pawns behind with my King already trapped by his Queen.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: makov333-sissa-2010-21-028
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
I cannot make move charging rook e3-d4 because of bug in code, I think.
Game: Embassy Chess Log: zdra4-cover33-2010-35-864
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Searching with [Userid:] zdra4 will allow you to delete unplayed games like this.
Game: HyperModern Shatranj Log: sam_trenholme-crazytom-2010-32-618
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
OK, since it looks like we can't delete comments here:

I apologize for all personal attacks I have made.

- Sam

Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
At present, there seems to be no way for editors to edit kibbitzing comments. We need David Howe to fix this. In the meantime, I would ask all parties to end the current line of discussion and avoid any and all personal attacks.
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Som Drinholm, you are very stupid.

Possibly, but I think it would be best if you stop the personal attacks. I hope I can get someone to just delete this entire thread. Like I said, I think people are taking this tournament far too seriously.

Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Som Drinholm, you are very stupid.
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
I will withdraw from the tournament then. I will finish all games (except this one, which I will resign from ) still being played, but please do not sign me up for more games.

The fact of the matter is that I don't have time for this tournament, not if it's going to be taken this seriously. I expected something which was more casual than what you guys want.

I apologize for the withdraw.

- Sam

Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Sam, I am sorry you will be quitting the tournament. I hope you will change your mind, but I will not accept your ultimatum as the slightest reason for allowing you to take back a move which under other circumstances I would not allow you to take back. The standing rule is that no move should be taken back in the tournament unless (1) it was illegal or (2) it was taken back despite being legal, and taking it back again restores the original move. As I understand the situation, you want to take back a move because you did not understand that the Sliding General is a slider rather than a leaper. The rules clearly state that the piece is a linear slider, and in case that was an unfamiliar term, the rules go on to say that the Rook is a linear slider. The rules make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that this piece is not a full leaper. Furthermore, I did not program it to leap two spaces. So, there is no basis for your claim that you should be allowed to take back a move in this situation. I wish you well with your marriage. Stay in the tournament if you like, and bear in mind that threatening to quit will not help you in any way.
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
[Delete me]
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
'Either allow me to take back these moves or I will withdraw from this tournament.' LOL! :))) I don't like to play with such 'player' in tournament. Bye!
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
'the rules were not clearly written and having one fairy piece able to leap but another fairy piece not able to leap is confusing' What has one piece to another? It is different pieces and have different moves. 'Sliding General: this piece is a linear slider, moving 1 or 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally' 'Elephant: this piece steps 1 or jumps 2 squares diagonally.' LoL! I'm not english-speaking, but I understand these rules fully...
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Sam you read without any attention (as I noted before the tournament). It's not a blitz-tournament. Do you know what is a blitz?! The rules are clear for this variant. You cannot take back you moves by your wish. Hope your wife will have no such problems with you. :)
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
[Delete me]
Game: Circular Chess Log: fergus-makov333-2010-9-195
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Right! I don't played well this position because I don't like it. I had advantage in the opening, but made some mistakes. I have to think when you equalize the game. Thank you for the game!
Game: Football Chess Log: jejujeju-cvgameroom-2010-6-688
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Help, we are having different interpretations of the rules, looking for outside input. In football chess, based on rules as listed, must a player kick the ball at least once if he can? Thanks in advance.
Game: Embassy Chess Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2010-4-437
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
It will work now. The wrong spaces were flagged at the start of the game, and that is now fixed.
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
I cannot make castling.
Game: Blue Chess Log: vopi-cvgameroom-2010-2-482
John Smith Verified as John Smith wrote on
This preset has different diagonal colorings from the image provided in the rules. They are reversed for Black and White. Since Black and White have different goals, this has strategical implications.
Game: Smess Log: jack2112-cvgameroom-2009-347-658
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
There was another typo. It has now been fixed.
Jack Nitch Verified as Jack Nitch wrote on
trying to move sg8 to g7 says cant move that piece forward?
Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: makov333-fergus-2009-346-134
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
This was a very intense game. Vitya played with great skill, often playing better responses to my moves than what I had anticipated. This would make a good example game for anyone interested in Kamikaze Mortal Shogi to study.
Game: Smess Log: jack2112-cvgameroom-2009-347-658
Jack Nitch Verified as Jack Nitch wrote on
trying to move sg8 to g7 says cant move that piece forward?
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
There was a typo is the code for enforcing the rules. It is now fixed.
Jack Nitch Verified as Jack Nitch wrote on
trying to move n g7 to g6, presets will not allow this move ??
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
...as did I...and it worked. Perhaps it had to do with solar bursts or organic chicken matter...either way, glad it worked and thanks for your attention to the matter Fergus.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I just tried that move, and it worked.
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Trying to move my numskull from e1 to f1. Preset keeps saying 'you cannot capture your own piece'. Is there a bug in the preset or am I overlooking something? Thanks for any help.
Game: Open Chess Log: ultimatecoolster-cvgameroom-2009-314-878
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
n h6-f2. I think it's illegal. Interesting game. I'd like to play it.
Game: Eurasian Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2009-323-094
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Vitya, You can now move your King. The bug in the Eurasian Chess preset is fixed.
Game: Smess Log: jake1234-jnitch-2009-330-972
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Why has this game continued past the capture of both Brains? The object is to capture your opponent's Brain, at which point the game ends.
Game: Xiang Hex Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2008-335-182
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
No, because of cannon e10-f9.
Nicholas Wolff Verified as Nicholas Wolff wrote on
On turn 5, could Armin have played h5-g8 instead of taking the chariot and done a smothered mate? I am just trying to get the hang of this game. Thanks!
Game: Hex Shogi 91 Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2009-320-161
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I fixed a bug in the hexshogi include file that was responsible for it falsely determining that I was stalemated after Vitya made his first move. I also replaced the log with its backup. So the game is back at the beginning with Vitya to make his first move again.
Game: Adjutant Chess Log: kalroten-cvgameroom-2009-309-803
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
Sorry for the delay.
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
Had you wanted to, you could have castled with the king immediately placed at h1./Mats
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-265
Nicholas Wolff Verified as Nicholas Wolff wrote on
Yes, I realize that. We have tried every command we know. won, resign, lost, drawn. These commands didn't work and yield an error. I figured I would try that command because it at least let me get to the submission page.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Nick, you typed 'resign-', this command will not work with a '-' on the end.

Game: Catapults of Troy Log: joejoyce-judgmentality-2009-245-432
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
I think black's last move might better have been Ram h11-g11, or moving the catapult/king to f11, say, would allow the king to step off the catapult and capture the Trojan horse. That not only guards the g10 square, which I had originally intended to occupy, but it guards or blocks the g11 square. Had I then played Trojan horse [knight + archer] to g10, you could even have traded the ram for the Trojan horse, and, as far as I can see, come out ahead.
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-265
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Won't let Nick resign.
Game: 2 Queen Rocky Horror Lycanthropic Chess Log: judgmentality-maeko-2009-289-594
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Nicholas: When I played my guard forward turning into a bishop to check your king, it was meant as a sacrifice. I knew it could be captured but thought I could checkmate your Wuss with c8-a2, only realizing too late that my Silver Bullet would manifest its rook side and not be checking your wuss on x1. So my diabolical 7th move turned out to be a blunder. This lesson did however give me an idea! (Which I executed in our actual game.)

Wuss has nowhere to move so game is lost. Had you moved your a1 Silver Bullet instead to create necessary Luft, my next move would have been moving my Philidor from c7-c6 turning it into a Berolina with threat of c6-d5 turning back into regular pawn again and trapping your Famous Oxford Don on e4! You could then move c3-a4, turning your Regret into a Knight and threatening to fork my wuss and queen on b7. I would then move my Wuss to remove that threat. Just some reflections.

Game: Universal Chess Log: judgmentality-maeko-2009-284-465
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
4. ... Lf5? 5.R*xf5 [b1-a3-b5-d6-f5] L = lion R* = rose
Game: Maorider Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-231-599
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Nice attack, Jeremy!
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Nick, 43 move incorrect because of Maorider
Game: Tutti-Frutti Chess Log: makov333-judgmentality-2009-231-872
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Are you sure? Not seeing it. For example: 22.....h3-g2 23. K e1-f2 c g2xRh1 24. K f2-g1 h1xPf3 check (cardinal=princess protected from Marshall=empress capture by n on d4).
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
After this king net Cardinal.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Would 22...h3-g2+ have netted Black a rook?
Game: Raumschach Log: bruck-moonbuzz-2008-105-488
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

For the information of the casual viewer: this game was played using a different Unicorn piece from this webpage. Shortly after this particular game began, the Raumschach preset was corrected to show alternate colors for the squares on the second and fourth boards.

See also L. Lynn Smith's Zillions file for Monster 3D Chess. In that 6x6x6 variant the Unicorn moves as in classic Raumschach, while the colorbound Hippogriff 'leaps to the opposite corner of a 2x2x3 area'.

Game: Universal Chess Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-248-434
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on

Jeremy: I have continued thinking on drops subject and believe it is perfectly possible that Black maintains the option of making not only the first but every.

What we need is to establish the drop order of both players with a dephasing of one turn between them, something like this:

Black's:

1st at any turn between 6 and 10 (including 6 and 10)
2nd at any turn between 11 and 15 (including 11 and 15)
3rd at any turn between 16 and 20 (including 16 and 20)
and so on.

White's;

1st at any turn between 7 and 11 (including 7 and 11)
2nd at any turn between 12 and 16 (including 12 and 16)
3rd at any turn between 17 and 21 (including 17 and 21)
and so on.

Everything is possible in this beautiful world!

Regarding castling, I maintain my initial proposal:

- If the king falls on the corners, there is no need of any castling;
- If he falls on b1/b8 or g1/g8, then the king would remain there and the piece on the nearest corner to him would leap to c1/c8 or f1/f8.
- If he falls on c1/c8 or f1/f8, then the king would remain there and the piece on the nearest corner would leap to d1/d8 or e1/e8.
- Finally, if he falls on d1/d8 or e1/e8, castling would be similar to FIDE's. But in this case he could castle with the piece placed at either corner by walking two steps towards the respective piece, and then this piece leaping the king to the adjacent square; exactly as in FIDE chess happens.
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: attackhippo-sissa-2009-245-443
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Attack, you aren't right! Archer can capture by shooting or by moving. '20. A x F7 (Archer moves and captures at F7)'
Game: Lemurian Shatranj Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-245-426
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
For Black's 10th move, how about ...d5-d4 followed by FAD to d5 forking bent heroes?
Game: Universal Chess Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-248-434
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Spotted Gryphon This colorbound piece moves like a ferz and may also continue outward as a dabbabah-rider, until it captures a piece or is blocked from further leaping. It can reach all squares of the same color that a Gryphon can, with the advantage that its movement can only be blocked on those squares. See my Rose Chess page for a Chainsaw (Dragon) movement diagram.

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Carlos: Well, as I understand it, Black has the option of making the first drop. Is that going to be true for every drop? That Black will have that option? In this case, I just chose not to exercise it.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the spotted gryphon as having dababa-rider like properties. Would it also be possible for you to link me to the original writings of Paulowich on this subject? I've been wanting to track them down because I am myself having some designs on variants featuring spotted gryphon and pieces derived from the spottted gryphon and it would be nice to have the original source.

Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
The answer to your question, Jeremy, is YES. Your Spotted Gryphon on g8 is certainly attaking to White's knight/wazir [provided that h5 be empty]. But be carefully with the 'matter of definition': the Spotted Gryphon IS NOT a slider; after its first step like ferz it can follow leaping pieces like DABABA-RIDER. Remember that dragon icon represents in this variant to Paulowich's 'chainsaw' = rook + spotted gryphon. I see you and Vitya are applying the new two rules suggested by you. See Vitya already have castling, but Black should have started the drops. What happened there? :-D
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Can the Spotted Gryphon jump over pieces that are on the opposite squares over which it moves? I want to play my rose h5-h1 hoping my Spotted Gryphon (aspect of my Dragon) is also attacking that space. But since the Gryphon is a slider, not a jumper (like the dababa-rider) I'm thinking it might not be possible but I guess it's all a matter of definition. What does David Paulowich say?
Game: Rooks Chess Log: makov333-judgmentality-2009-205-665
Nicholas Wolff Verified as Nicholas Wolff wrote on
I am also interested in a game on this :)
Game: Oxram Chess Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-228-907
Nicholas Wolff Verified as Nicholas Wolff wrote on
I am interested in this if I can get an invite :)
Game: Universal Chess Log: judgmentality-sissa-2009-244-339
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
The white rose wouldn't be checking the black king from g5.
Game: Universal Chess Log: maeko-sissa-2009-197-802
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Zigzag General is indeed a very strong piece. Had Nicholas Wolff played f2-b4 on move 23, I believe that would have been checkmate.
Game: Universal Chess Log: judgmentality-sissa-2009-244-339
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
White overlooked 1.Rose c1-b3-c5-e6-g5 mate.
'RandomChess' variants with powerful pieces can be tricky. 

EDIT: I must have been looking at the Pawn (g4) when I wrote 
about a White Rose checkmate.  As you say, there is no check 
from g5. Tricky indeed!
Game: Oxram FIDE Chess Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-231-457
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Please note: Move 6, White could have just taken Black's bishop with his knight using the chameleon function!
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-265
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Nick, your first move should be: ''k-d10;'' and then the move you should have made can go after the semicolon. On the other hand, your king can be considered extremely well-protected by means of a cloaking device. :-) Game Courier can play some strange tricks on you. I once lost a piece to a blank square, in a game of Hyperchess with Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, and neither of us noticed it. Or I didn't, anyway, until long afterward, when I was transcribing the game.
Game: Lemurian Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-279
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Yes. It is mate. That bent 2-step guard is a nasty piece.
Game: Maorider Chess Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-206-469
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
I was thinking about 73. .. Mao f5-e7 as the best move.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Instead of the greedy and immediately losing move 73...pg-g5, what should I have played? I suggested 73...g3-g2. Vitya thinks it might work and gives us the following sequence: 73...g3-g2 74. h1-h4 - g4-g3 75. e3-f3 - g3-f2.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Last time I was mated in 7 moves and this time I was mated in 74 moves, both quite unexpectedly!
Game: CwDA: the Shatranjian Shooters Log: judgmentality-makov333-2009-194-440
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
SS, I think
Game: Maorider Chess Log: makov333-judgmentality-2009-194-946
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Instructive game. Black (played by me) manages to find himself checkmated in short order, not realizing that his king didn't have the ability to capture.
Game: Maorider Chess Log: makov333-penswift-2009-206-665
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
My own belief is that any piece that has a different movement forward than backward should be 'facing' the other side for easiest playability as with my chu shogi - alfaerie preset or my Grand Shogi preset or my demirifle army preset (look them up). Indeed, I do find it confusing to play with nutty knights army for precisely the reason Gary indicates. If Vitya would like, we will have the charging knight for this preset turned so that one can always see the dots behind it but it might take a little time before we get it added to alfaerie - many so we can implement it (a few weeks even).
Game: Balanced Marseillais Chess Log: andreas-cvgameroom-2009-190-940
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
It won't let me make a move.
Game: Chieftain Chess Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-267
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
I'm so sure there is no first move advantage in this game that the next time we play, I will let you start as white and I will pass my first turn as black, giving white 2 turns of supposed first move advantage, to demonstrate my position. ;-) Heck, maybe I'll make a 1-year challenge to all comers to prove any first move advantage by playing black and passing turn 1. Would that demonstrate this game has NO first move advantage?
Game: Little Trio B Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-158-585
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Yes
Game: Quinquereme Chess Log: godzilla-cvgameroom-2007-42-821
Andy Maxson Verified as Andy Maxson wrote on
yes i am still interested
Game: Cavalry Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-142-795
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Anyone think I could have won?
Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-143-858
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Joe, I like it a lot! Thank you for reexamining it and coming up with a great suggestion. You should factor it into your wiki essay on Joe's Strange Notation (for people interested I provide a link to it in my Rules page for Hullabaloo), with time and inclination. After all, notation is meant to make things more workable.
Game: Atlantean Barroom Shatranj Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-144-538
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Distrusting euphoria and learning to see things through your opponent's eyes: I am often overlooking the need to defend. I tend to underestimate my opponent's powers, my opponent's whole viewpoint. Especially this can happen when I'm feeling euphoric about my own attacking chances. I try to recognize that when I'm experiencing this euphoria, to be skeptical of it and take my opponent's prospects very seriously even though I believe him/her to be considerably weakened and losing. In my last move during this game, I was so enchanted by own winning chances that I failed to properly defend and succumbed in just one move to a simple checkmate. I'm sure it's happened to many of you. I even saw that my opponent could do it but never stopped to consider that my king wasn't strong enough to get away. An object lesson in the powers of the zigzag general but a deeper lesson about the need to think through sequences of attack for weakened opponents and not just yourself. There is a saying, 'The hardest thing to do in chess is win a won game.' True for some of us sometimes at least.

Is there a specific lesson to take away from this? Rarely assume that you can defend adequately (or as you may wish) against a weakened opponent unless you calculate an actual sequence of moves. In the position I cite, I lost because I failed to calculate even one move. I just ASSUMED my king could get away and was shocked to discover that it couldn't. Was my attack premature because it left behind a king that was too poorly defended?

Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-143-858
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
How about: [D+W]/[A+F] This specifies it is either a linear hero or a linear shaman in its movement.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Joe: I need to describe all these pieces much better in my rules! How these various pieces move. Please see comment to white's move 5. I guess, in Joe's Notation, it's: W + A + D + F (even though we really mean that any one has the option to use the other straight line component W can use D, vice versa, A can use F, vice versa).
Game: Atlantean Barroom Shatranj Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-144-538
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hm, not sure how to do this better. Here are the relevant rules: 'Zigzag general, a bent 2-step rider. Moves twice as the jumping general*. It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally, then may do any of the 4 possible move types again. Thus it may move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares in a turn. It may change directions between its first and second step. Null moves are not allowed.' 'Jumping General. Moves as either the elephant [AF] or warmachine [DW]. It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally. It is a linear piece.' Each individual step of the ZiZag General's 2 steps is linear. The step is 1 or 2 squares. The 2 square leap is always straight, leaping over an adjacent square to the next one directly across from the original square. The ZZG cannot make a knight's leap in one step. Again, all its individual moves are linear. It changes direction between steps only. I hope this helps. As a side note, the zigzag general can reach all but 16 of the 80 closest squares, and Vitya, you picked one of those 16 squares. :)
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Joe, some clarification of the ability of one of the pieces to move might be helpful here.
Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: maeko-makov333-2009-139-899
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Vitya: Congratulations! Nicely done! Nicholas: Sorry for your defeat. Better luck next time!
Game: Rennaisance Chess II Log: sherman101-sissa-2009-148-469
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
****As sad as I know this sounds, I do not yet have a coherent rules page for my preset of Eric Greenwood's new Rennchess II. I want to include the diagrams I created to better represent the movement schemes of the pieces in Rennchess, but I do not know how to embed them into the file. ****Anyway, the following will have to suffice for now: Here is a link to the rules page for Rennaisaisnce Chess I. The basic rules for Rennchess II are identical to those for Rennchess I, plus the addition of a new piece, the omission of two, and different starting set-up. ****Here is a letter I wrote to Carlos Cetina which explains 'who's who' with regard to the icon changes I've made in Rennchess II: ****'Carlos, these are the icons I chose for Eric's new game. I think they look a bit better, and might be easier for a newcomer to use. ****The rules for RC2 are exactly the same as those of RC1. I describe the pieces below both because there is a new one- the Courier- and several of the icons are different from RC1. They move exactly as their counterparts do in RC1, though. ****The promotion rules of RC2 are the same, as well. ****Forgive me if any, or all of the following is stuff you already know... >>1. The champion icons at c1, j1, c10 and j10 are dual-path griffins. They are known as 'Cavaliers' in RC. >>2. At f1 and g10 we find dual-path aancas. They are 'Dukes.' >>3. The icons at c2, j2, c9 and j9 are called 'Couriers' in RC2, and move as either an alfil or a ferz. They are the sole new piece in RC2. If you know the Phoenix of Chu Shogi, than you know this piece. >>4. e2 and f9 contain a ferz/wazir/alfil/dababbah hybrid (one step in any direction, or a jump to a second square orthog. or diag.) called a 'Squire.' Note, it may not change direction mid-move. >>5. h2 and e9 each contain a 'Page,' which moves as either a guard or a knight. >>6. a1, l1, a10, and l10 contain 'Castles,' which may jump to ANY second square like a knight, a dababbah, or an alfil. They may not make a one-step move. I like this piece. ****The rest of the pieces are certainly obvious to you. I hope this game 'works!' Thank you for trying it!'****Does anyone know how Eric Greenwood is doing? I'd really like to show him this preset. I do think it LOOKS pretty good, rules or no rules...!
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
I'll play anyone who does not mind a game with no time limit.
Game: Chess with Different Armies: DemiRifle Army Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-145-521
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I believe Black's 3rd move is illegal as that piece can only leap forward diagonally two squares, not one.
Game: Atlantean Barroom Shatranj Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-30-219
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Kitchen is closing, Joe, time to make a move.
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: mageofmaple-olbog-2009-127-169
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Whoops! Guess that would explain why it's not working! Thanks, David.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Rule 6 There is no castling in this game.
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Help! I'm stuck! This rule-enforcing preset is broken and it's not letting me castle. Does anyone have access to fix the code, or to turn off rule enforcement?
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
This preset is broken; I can't castle
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: agentofchaos-lukaszek-2009-119-688
attack hippo Verified as attack hippo wrote on
Nobody but Vitya responded to the email in regards to what to do with the first round of the tournament since both games screwed up. It has been decided to redo the first round of the tournament. Good luck!
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: makov333-pallab-2009-28-778
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Sure! Just send an invite to my username: mageofmaple. Any pairing of the four 'classic' armies is fine with me.
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Hi Greg! Thanks for your comment. Would you like to play CWDA with me?
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Vitya, I saw your comment about the power of the CWDA pieces. I agree almost completely, except that I would bump the FAD up to 4 pawns. Regards, Greg
Game: Chinese Chess Log: justsojazz-cvgameroom-2009-109-455
Michael Christensen Verified as Michael Christensen wrote on
Game: Universal Chess Log: maeko-makov333-2009-88-750
Carlos Cetina Verified as Carlos Cetina wrote on
Nick, Vitya, Be careful with the turns numeration that is altered/displaced in two units; that is, the last move made by White [14.A c1-h6] really corresponds to the 12th turn. By other part, the rules allow to do two drops followed if they are done in turns 10-11, 15-16, 20-21, and so on.
Game: Directed Alice Chess III Log: grayhawke-joejoyce-2009-65-573
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. I've been playing Scott McGreal with the optional first-step parton transition and the mandatory second-step one. Using a different rule in this game could prove tricky, but it's a nice option, certainly in the spirit of the movement rules I've been using, crud! Remind me every once in a while that the rule is different in the 2 games, lol!
Graeme Neatham Verified as Graeme Neatham wrote on

Parton transitions

Joe,
my initial reaction was that the transition to the Parton cell should mark the termination of the move - a strict (and restrictive?) interpretaion of the Alice rule.

Further thought has brought me round to appreciating the free-er interpretations. In fact I think I would go further, allowing an optional transition at the end of each step, provided at least one transition was made per move.

Cheers
Graeme

Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: fergus-penswift-2009-10-709
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
This was a more challenging game of Kamikaze Mortal Shogi than I've normally played. After Gary's 41st move, I took over a week to move, because I needed the time to find a move that would not result in quick checkmate for me. I decided that I could not afford to divide my efforts between attacking his King and defending my own, and I turned my attention to taking out his Dragon Horse. My attack on the Dragon Horse was not perfect. I left room for escape if he drove my King away with some checks, but he settled for exchanging the Dragon Horse for my Silver General, which gave me the upper hand again. My second to last move could have been a blunder but it worked out for me. After I made the move, I realized that he could have dropped a Pawn right in front of the Lance I dropped. When he dropped the Kamikaze instead, I had effectively won the game. If he hadn't resigned, it would have been mate in no more than two moves: 48. K 4h-4i 48... g 3g-3h // Any other move would lead to immediate checkmate 49. K 4i-5i 49... R*6i // Checkmate
Game: Courier Chess Log: lunaris-pallab-2008-349-421
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
What was done to redo move 33 in this game? Last I knew, the ability to take back moves was broken and I hadn't gotten around to fixing it. Did you follow an email link to the game or go from the Logs page?
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2009-13-602
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
If you will have such mistakes you can edit your move. ;)
pallab basu Verified as pallab basu wrote on
Yes it was a mistake :), I was planning to play 19.. bxe3 20. Pxe3 20.. q-h6 and possibly wining back a pawn. But mistakenly I played the queen move before the bishop move.
Vitya Makov Verified as Vitya Makov wrote on
Thanks! :) But why you to me have given the chance to take away bishop: 19. WA e3:c5? It was mistake?
Game: Shatranji Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2009-16-214
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
In this game, I sacrificed a Knight to get both of my opponent's center Pawns. It worked out. Although he remained ahead materially, I was able to place a Knight in the center that would support a Pawn attack on the King. Since the King was surrounded by pieces that couldn't defend it well, all it could do was flee. Checking it with the Elephant was then sufficient for checkmate.
Game: Brouhaha Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2009-12-727
attack hippo Verified as attack hippo wrote on
vitya, i sent you an email regarding the tournament you wanted to be in. please check it and send me a reply. thanks. -andrew hippo
Game: Stealth Ninja Chess Log: joejoyce-frozen_methane-2008-303-720
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Fergus, is there any way to check the time that was available for Charles from my last move. I was unaware that Charles was running out of time, and I strongly suspect he was, too.
Game: Ca Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-304-868
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on

The move 21. c6-e4 was legal, but there was a bug. Here is what the problem was. The code for checking whether the Queen was moving through check was checking for attacks on empty spaces instead of Queen-occupied spaces. This led to incorrect values for divergent pieces, in this case the Anglican Bishop whose non-capturing orthogonal move reached one of the spaces the Queen's move would pass over. I corrected this by moving the Queen to each step in her move before checking whether it is attacked. With the Queen on the space before determining whether any piece attacks it, I get correct values from divergent pieces. This same bug could have caused the Prince Consort to stop legal Queen moves from a distance, as David Paulowich surmised was happening, though in the case he mentioned, the move was still illegal for another reason.

Game: Grasshopper Chess Log: toshix-jejujeju-2008-364-616
toshix Verified as toshix wrote on
Thanks, good luck to you too!
Game: ShortRange Courier Chess Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-353-191
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The problem was that a couple set files pointed to images at chessvariants.com instead of chessvariants.org, and the chessvariants.com domain appears to be in transition from the old site to the new site right now. I changed them to point to chessvariants.org.
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2008-345-001
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I'll go along with whatever resolution you and Vitya agree to. My recommendation is to let me change the time controls so you can continue your game.
Game: ShortRange Courier Chess Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-353-191
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Has something happened to the Alfaerie: Grand Shatranj image set? No pictures this morning in this game - ditto some Grand/Great Shatranj games I looked at.

Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2008-345-001
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
I am going to delete this game if the issue with the game being marked as won by my opponent (when he had a lost position) is not resolved.

Thank you.

Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Judging by the values in your log file, you set up overly strict time controls for this game. The spare time was only two days, the grace time one day, and players got a bonus of 1 hour for moving within an hour. Time controls need to be more lenient than this.
Game: Ca Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-304-868
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The reason 30. Q f5-d7 was rejected is that it would have crossed over a space protected by the black Dragon at a4. The Prince Consort does not capture long-distance as a Queen and was not covering any spaces the Queen would have passed over. I think 21. c6-e4 should be legal, but I'll have to wait until the move is finished before I debug it. Note it's possible that the bug is already gone. I rewrote this preset between two of my own games, and the bug preventing this move might have been in either the old version or in a buggy transitional version. But I'll check it out after the move is finished.
Game: ShortRange Courier Chess Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-353-191
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Pawns move one square at a time. They can and must promote to any piece of the same color from the initial setup (for example, a player can have 15 Rooks on the board). Victory conditions are the same as in Shatranj Kamil X: checkmate and most stalemates.

Game: Ca Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-304-868
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

I notice that Q f5-d7 crossed a square (e6) that the Black King could move to. Perhaps the program forgot that the Black King cannot capture on that square.

But I have no idea at all why 21. c6-e4 was rejected.

Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2008-345-001
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
How come this game is marked as one where my opponent won?
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Done. Now let's end this game honorably.
Game: Ca�ssa Britannia Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-304-868
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
And now for move 30 it won't let me go from f5 to d7? There's got to be a bug - there aren't any pieces that would threaten her.
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2008-345-001
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Okay, I reverted the log, Sam. It looks like you need to replay your move.
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Yes, I think that would be fair. I don't think it's fair for me to declare this a victory unless my opponent resigns, runs out of time, or I checkmate him.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I can revert the log to the backup file if either of you want to finish this game. I have since corrected for the time lost while the server was down.
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
OK, I feel it's fair to say I won this game. While the timeout did happen while the server was down
  • My opponent had not made a move for over two days when the server went down
  • The position is lost for black
Game: Chinese Chess Log: pallab-orangeaurochs-2008-337-937
Thomas Meehan Verified as Thomas Meehan wrote on
It's a lot harder to get used to the basic moves. The knight's starting position seems generally to be quite hazardous.
Game: Shatranj Kamil X Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-208-890
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Each player has three colorbound pieces, which cover the entire board with no overlapping. This game design requires the White Elephants to start on ranks one and two, in order to place them on squares of opposite color from the White Ferz. If, on the other hand, the game started with Elephants on the first and tenth ranks, then the fifth rank would be dominated by White Elephants and the sixth rank by Black Elephants. That initial setup might make it more difficult for the players to advance their pawns into enemy territory - and result in more drawn games.

Game: Ca�ssa Britannia Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-304-868
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Does anybody know why I can't make my move 21 be c6-e4? Going diagonally down I shouldn't be in check ever.
Game: HiveQueen Log: joejoyce-interrupt27-2008-268-240
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Uh-oh! The *workers* step 1; the warriors don't. Lol! Oops. Rats! ;-)
Larry Smith Verified as Larry Smith wrote on
I meant a Nurse move with that comment on turn 15. I don't know why I was thinking Drone. I guess I got a little confuse with the piece set. Maybe I should try the new one. ;-)
Game: Ca Log: makov333-cvgameroom-2008-309-062
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
It appears I stumbled into checkmate on my last move. I plan to update this preset to spot check, checkmate and stalemate.
Game: Xiang Hex Log: ultimatecoolster-interrupt27-2008-324-123
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The preset had a bug. I was using the array operator on what was already an array, which created 2d arrays where 1d arrays were expected. I fixed the bug and fixed your log so that your game can continue.
John Smith Verified as John Smith wrote on
I spent quite a while trying to figure out how that was checkmate.
Larry Smith Verified as Larry Smith wrote on
I think the preset's broke. ;-)
Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-300-750
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Thank you Antoine. It seems so simple when properly explained!
Game: Xiang Hex Log: ultimatecoolster-interrupt27-2008-324-123
Larry Smith Verified as Larry Smith wrote on
When I made this move on turn 6, I received the following at the top of the verification screen: Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247 Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 165 Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247 Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247
Larry Smith Verified as Larry Smith wrote on
Finally noticed this comment section. Just didn't get that far down the page. 'Til now. ------------------------------------- It's all about defense and sacrifice.
John Smith Verified as John Smith wrote on
Larry, you should know I love gambits in Xiang Qi.
Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-300-750
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
You're already in check. You cannot fend off check with check, since your opponent would capture your King before you capture his.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
I can move a long-leaper to threaten the opposing king (b8-b5), which should force my opponent to move his king, not allowing him to move the coordinator in for
Game: Save the Standard 13x13 Log: joejoyce-graemecn-2008-303-722
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Graeme, is this move legal: 'rm7-yb7;ye7-yd7;yc7-' ?
Game: Circular Chess Log: carlos-graemecn-2008-303-724
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
oops. my opening move should obviously be j1-k1. you can fix it and make your move if you see this.
Game: Asylum Redux Log: carlos-graemecn-2008-303-735
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
If someone can delete this game, that would be good. I accidentally put myself against Graeme in this game and not Charles.
Game: Grand Cavalier Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2008-298-882
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Well done, Vitya. You played a very strong game, making a terrific comeback after my earlier material gains. It was a pleasure to play against such a good opponent.
Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-272-656
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Is it true that the Withdrawer can only kill when withdrawing in an orthogonal direction?
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Aw nuts - you're right! Nevermind then - except it did make such a nice excuse for why I lost :)
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
If you are referring to 15... c7-c4 in your previous game, it was a Pawn which captured the Withdrawer. The Chameleon was already in place.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Scott and Chad, sorry to be breaking in on your game comments like this. Fergus, the ability of game courier to accept close to 50 moves is something a few designers are beginning to use. If you are going to 'fix' that, please use an adjustable parameter with an upper boundary as high as possible. Thank you.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The first bug needs to be fixed by Antoine Fourriere, who programmed the rule enforcement. The second bug is a systemic bug from Game Courier having no general means of restricting the number of move primitives a player may enter for a move. I have plans for fixing this but need to find the time to get to it.
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Hey, Fergus, I think we've found two bugs: 1-the chameleon will 'pinch' any piece when it's only supposed to pinch a pawn, 2-it's possible to commit suicide for an immobilized piece and still move (using the notation @-d2;g2-f2 )
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Oh please. You had me at move three. A few killer mistakes at the beginning make a big difference.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Ouch. So much for that game I guess. :(
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Since I can no longer add a comment to your Shogi game, I will do it here. You guys were using invalid notation in your Shogi game. The spaces that begin with an exclamation mark should not be mentioned in the notation you enter for moves. When you wish to drop a piece, enter the piece label, an asterisk, and its destination. For example: B*5f. Also, it is illegal to drop a piece and move a piece on the same turn. You must use your turn to do only one or the other. Anyway, I have now updated Game Courier to disallow moves made explicitly to or from spaces whose coordinate begins with an exclamation mark. This has interrupted your Shogi game with an illegal move message. You can no longer play your Shogi game, but please feel free to start another one.
Game: Shogi Log: hambledon-sdc.stats-2008-256-740
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
This preset enforces rules and automates drops and captures, yet you are entering moves in this game as though it does not do all this. First of all, it is illegal for a drop move to capture a piece. The problem is that the preset is not programmed to screen out extra moves. You should be entering no more than two move operations per move, and usually just one. The second is an occasional promotion.
Game: Makruk (Thai chess) Log: j_carrillo_vii-cvgameroom-2008-184-053
Alexander Krutikov Verified as Alexander Krutikov wrote on
I've found no better place to remind Jose Carillo that he still has two games with me running...
Game: Shogi Log: hambledon-sdc.stats-2008-256-740
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Gentlemen, I know little about shogi, but I do know this. You must, in your turn, move one piece without dropping a piece, or drop one piece without moving any piece. The original shogi rules do not allow moving a piece you have dropped this turn. On the other hand, it should speed the game up... ;-)
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Question... If you capture a piece on the same turn that you drop a piece, the captured piece does not come to your 'corral' - it just disappears. Is that intended behavior?
Game: Raumschach Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-250-598
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Armin, Oops! My mistake- this preset IS correct.
Game: Shogi Log: hambledon-sdc.stats-2008-256-740
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Promotion is immediate, after making a normal move that ends (or begins) in the promotion zone. But piece drops do not count as normal moves. Click on the [Rules] button for more details.

Game: Elephant Hunt Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-128-723
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Your move, George
Game: Shogi Log: hambledon-sdc.stats-2008-256-740
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
I think the forward movement is the point. This is a game of attack (and movement within the enemy zone, but not retreat). I noticed the pieces even look forward facing. My impression of the rules was that you have to choose to promote the pieces (it takes a turn), and if you reach the final rank you can't move them until you promote them. Of course I was mistaken about some of Ultima's rules too.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
wow. lots of forward movement available, but not many go backwards. Do you know - when it says 'may promote when enters the promotion area' does that mean if you choose not to promote you must either exit and enter again or move to the final ranks to promote (i.e. moving around won't let you promote after that first decision)?
Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-family-2008-237-788
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
15... c7-c4 was a capture by a Pawn move, not by a Chameleon move. So it is legal.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Interesting variant. I feel inclined to develop to the edges, as you seem to get more power that way. It's hard to do anything in the middle.
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Gosh Chad, you've got me. Hurry and finish it off painlessly.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Ah - you're right. I went back and looked and it did act as a pawn and that does seem like a bug. I guess that's maybe three we've found so far.
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
I know what you're saying, but the chameleon withdrew tangent to the withdrawer. It's supposed to only work when it withdraws directly away. Poor thing. I promised her I would keep her protected, and now this happens. I think it's a bug.
Chad Crawford Verified as Chad Crawford wrote on
Sorry - didn't see the comments. The chameleon became a withdrawer and...well... withdrew.
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Hey! How did he just eat my withdrawer? Did that chameleon just become a pawn? That's not fair.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
This is a family site. Genteel trash talk is fine. :-)
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Well apparently this works - I don't know if they'll censor us if we trash talk though. Sometimes that's half the fun.
Scott Crawford Verified as Scott Crawford wrote on
Hey - I'm seeing whether it's possible to add comments here.
Game: Shatranj Kamil X Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-208-890
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Pawn = 100, Ferz = 175, (ordinary) Elephant = 175, Knight = 300, War Elephant = 350 are my revised piece values in this game. Why bump the colorbound pieces up 25 points? The Ferz is a handy little piece, worth a solid 150 points on a 10x10 board, plus a 25 point bonus for promoting (just like the Pawn). While the Alibaba may be worth not much more than 200 points, the Elephant should be nearly as valuable in the endgame, when there are few pieces on the board. Ralph Betza once estimated the combined Alfilrider and Dabbabahrider piece as worth no more than a Knight on an 8x8 board. Instead of generating pages of pseudomathematics here, I will just list some reasons for liking these pieces:

the War Elephant can force a stalemate victory against a lone King,

while King and (ordinary) Elephant can actually draw against five War Elephants, provided they all travel on squares of the opposite color to the Elephant.

Game: Chieftain Chess II Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-91-546
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
I've been curious about piece values in this game. Clearly, the chief is the strongest piece in this whole series of games; the rookish in Overlord is the only current piece that comes close to the chief's power as a piece. The guard is an interesting piece here; it is the only non-'royal' piece that attacks its 8 neighboring squares, and thus can block the movement of the enemy chiefs. But it's the slowest piece, slower than any other piece including the royal piece. This plays into the results of this game. A really even game between 2 players has a very good chance to end in a draw, like here, where we traded 44 pieces, losing 22 each, and leaving just 10 of the original 32 per side. It is not clear what is minimum sufficient advantage to force a win, and I suspect it changes as the gameboards get bigger.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Knight = 300, Guard = 300, Shaman = 360, Hero = 450 are my latest estimates for this 16x12 board. I am giving the three-steppers lower values than in Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, as I feel that the much larger board and multiple moves per turn cause a 'leveling out' of the piece values. The Chieftain (giving the player an extra move) is worth at least two Heroes.

Game: Rose Chess XII Log: david_64-sissa-2008-194-848
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

This movement diagram uses hollow squares for the War Machine and X's for the War Elephant (not used in this variant). For an ASCII diagram of Rose moves on a 16x16 board, see the Rose Chess Preset.

Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2008-163-685
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Sam, I don't know how players manage to accept games without giving their names - but it may not be possible for your opponent to make any further moves. After all, what password does one enter for 'nobody'?

Regarding time limits, I have been trying to convert Joe Joyce 
to a '411' system, allowing two weeks per move: 
[Timed Game?] checked 
[Spare Time:] 4 weeks 
[Grace Time:] 1 week
[Extra Time:] 1 week
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
I don't know what happened to this player, but unless I see a clear interest in continuing this game, I will delete it in the next few days (I understand I gave a one-month per-move time limit; however not making a move after the first move is pushing things)
Game: Eurasian Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2008-71-600
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Thanks for the game Carlos. I used my Omega Chess set to analyse these complicated positions. After your latest move (in time trouble), it looks like I can win a Rook with:

... Rook f4-f2 check!

carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
oops... you would have won anyway, i think. good game.
Game: Janus Chess Log: joejoyce-david_64-2008-52-143
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Thank you for the congratulations, David. I seem to have picked a good time to have finally won a game against you. This officially ends CV Tournament #3 - maybe I should tell carlos.
Game: Medieval Chess Log: ironlance-cvgameroom-2005-20-982
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
This forgotten game has Betza compounds (W + D) and (F + A).
Game: Falcon Chess Log: frozen_methane-carlos-2008-113-531
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Officially now it is free castling with King required to move 2+, but not all the way to corner, and no Queen promotion. However, the other two alternatives are okay if both sides agree. That is, Queen promotion only by agreement beforehand. And King one-step-castling-option only if both sides agree beforehand (or along the way).
Game: Titan Chess Log: gwduke-frozen_methane-2008-113-545
Charles Daniel Verified as Charles Daniel wrote on
I fixed the link on the preset so you can now view the rules. I fail to see how you can judge a game as being unfair due to this obvious oversight in making the preset.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
This is pathetically unfair game. I defy anyone to click through the Rules and tell what the Pawns with two Triangle caps are, as well as other pieces.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: tchervenkov-jejujeju-2008-30-534
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
We must assume that a tournament game of Shatranj or Modern Shatranj 
will be following the given rules, not footnotes.  I have argued in 
the past that any variant rules worth playing should have their own 
pages on this site.
Game: Jacks and Witches Log: donutdonut-gwduke-2008-113-547
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
George, you don't show up on my list of members. Go here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/system:join and try to join. Email me with any any error messages. Joe
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: tchervenkov-jejujeju-2008-30-534
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
This is either a stalemate win for black, or a 1-move checkmate for black, depending on which rule is used. I quote from the rules: 'Stalemate counts as a win.** ... **Pritchard cites a rule variation that is not mentioned by all authors: A stalemated King may be transposed with one of its other pieces, as long as this does not result in check.' If the transposition is allowed, K-h5 swaps with P-h4, then r-h8 mate.
Game: Jacks and Witches Log: donutdonut-gwduke-2008-113-547
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Jeju (or Joyce), you suggested tournament players join the Wiki. I thought I did mid-April, but my name does not appear there yet, although trying to re-join it reads, ''user with this email already exist.'' Where did mine go?
Game: Gigachess Log: sherman101-lunaris-2008-9-090
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
This game ain't bad, but, in my humble opinion, Toulousian Chess is his best!
Game: Coherent Chess Log: sissa-gwduke-2008-115-861
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Hi Carlos. The invitation is accepted for Coherent Chess, but does not allow play. There was a message it is ''not initialized.'' I will try again later. You may have to make another invitation to start the play.
Game: Near Chess Log: richardhutnik-cvgameroom-2008-106-219
Rich Hutnik Verified as Rich Hutnik wrote on
I will add here, if people don't like the rooks being threatened by the Bishops, then one can play this with the rooks dropped back one row. Only the Knight's pawns are threatened, and not the Rooks.
Rich Hutnik Verified as Rich Hutnik wrote on
The way more advanced players can play Near Chess in other ways are one of these ways: 1. Play it against Normal Chess in Near vs Normal. 2. Use a 960 shuffle, or alternate turn drop of pieces into the first or second row. 3. Introduction of Capablanca and other fantasy pieces. Playing it on 8x10 board is cool for people who want to play a larger board variant. Such a board is hard to come by for most people though. It also isn't Near Chess. If someone has a better name for it, please come up with it. Maybe Expanded FIDE perhaps. I also can't vouch for the amount of draws that would occur in Expanded FIDE, but I know the number of draws in Near Chess is greatly reduced. I will stand on this game being a good intro game for newer players.
Rich Hutnik Verified as Rich Hutnik wrote on
When I say 'easier to learn for beginners' this doesn't mean it is not meant to lack depth, just that it has less rules and is simplier to get started. It is easier to learn than chess as the opening is more restrained to it, and the pawns are better defended. By dropping En Passant, and Castling, that streamlines it even more. Of course, there is Simplified Chess, which happens to eliminate rows in the back. My feel is that waters down Near Chess, but still has its place.
Game: Tenjiku Shogi Log: sherman101-lunaris-2008-104-420
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Game: Raumschach Log: agentofchaos-cvgameroom-2008-108-496
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

WARNING: the pieces are not set up correctly - also the second and fourth levels have the wrong colored squares. You can use my Raumschach Revised preset - eventually an editor will add a link to it on the game information page.

Game: Raumschach Log: agentofchaos-melmelmarms-2008-103-191
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
At last! The preset is correct. Thank you Mr. David Paulowich!
Game: Korean Chess Log: lunaris-cvgameroom-2007-325-709
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'drawn' is the correct word to use
Game: Rennaisance Chess IIc Log: sherman101-cavalier-2008-83-115
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Three years ago I posted Piececlopedia comments about the Cavalier and the Duke, mentioning some gryphon/aanca type pieces used by Adrian King and Mark Hedden. More recently, Gary K. Gifford has posted a 12 by 12 variant called Gryphon Aanca Chess. My own Rose Chess XII has Spotted Gryphons, limiting the number of other pieces in order to provide more 'breathing room' on the board.

Regarding Mark's comment below, the Boyscout / Crooked Bishop has been re-invented at least once. Dababbah riders are rarely seen, but the Dragon in Ca

Game: Unicorn Great Chess Log: sherman101-david_64-2008-39-954
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Here is that game I've been working on- of course, a la Betza. It has no real name, save 'Medieval War Chess,' which I dislike. The archers, and the cannons' 'kill' ranges are symbolized, and doubled by their proximity to the 'battlements' directly in front of them. They are considered to be on top of them. The 'shooters,' themselves, cannot capture by displacement. The battlements can only move one square ahead, but may capture on that move. The cannon may only shoot straight ahead, up to three squares, OR up to six, if directly behind, orthogonally, a battlement. The Archers may only shoot up to two squares, only diagonally, OR up to four, if diagonally adjacent to a battlement. Neither 'shooters' may capture a piece by displacement. I feel that this game might provide some interesting dilemmas for either players as to whether they should sacrifice, possibly, more powerful pieces for either shooters, or the battlements which double their firing range, or simply avoid their firing ranges and attack with the strong pieces. This is the preset here. I know you aren't too fond of the 16x16 games, but I think this one would not take 4 years to finish, and you might just enjoy it!
Game: Voidrider Chess Log: joejoyce-mschmahl-2008-52-143
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Joe, based on the demo game, Fergus vs Fergus, the answer is yes. He did it a few times in that game.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Sorry, guys, yet another rules question: The rules on moving squares state: 'it is illegal to move a space to any orthogonally isolated location, that is to any location where it will not share a side with another space' This is my question: can I move a square so that it follows that rule, but leaves another square only diagonally connected to the board? I have a rook and bishop, adjacent to each other, sticking out of the left side of my position. I can slide a pawn and square sideways in front of the bishop, which gives me 3 squares in a row, bishop in the middle, off the left side of my board. Could I then slide the bishop and its square back into the original board field, leaving the pawn and square only diagonally attached? I believe the answer is 'Yes'. But the rules do not stipulate, and I've been wrong before. Is there anyone who knows for sure?
Game: Rose Chess XII Log: david_64-sherman101-2008-75-749
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
The Piececlopedia has a multicolor Rose movement diagram.
Note that the (half-)rose in this game makes at most four hops.
On a large board, the rose [O] can still move to 32 squares [x]:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
. . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . 14
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . . 13
. . . . x . . . x . . . x . . . 12
. . . . . x . . . . . x . . . . 11
. . . x . . . x . x . . . x . . 10
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  9
. . x . x . . . O . . . x . x .  8
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  7
. . . x . . . x . x . . . x . .  6
. . . . . x . . . . . x . . . .  5
. . . . x . . . x . . . x . . .  4
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . x . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p
Game: Rennaisance Chess IIc Log: sherman101-cavalier-2008-83-115
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Thank you for having a look at my chess thing. The newest link, below, is the most recent version of it, and I think it's the best one thus far. I do think, though, that it just might be too complex, but won't, of course, really know until it's been played (which is where you might be of service! )*** If I may, I'd like to give you a brief description of it's rules. I'll start with piece movement. The bishop-like icons on a1, p1, a16, and p16 are crooked bishop/wazir hybrids a la Ralph Betza. Next, at b1, o1, b16, and o16, are dababbah riders, followed, at c1, n1, c16, and n16, by crooked rooks-- again, a Betza invention, as you probably know. Fourth in, at c1, m1, d16, and m16, are standard nightriders. The odd horses at e1, l1, e16, and l16, with the 'actualized potential' lines surrounding them (from the game of that name) are meant to represent either Knight/Camel/Zebra hybrids, that is, 2+1; 3+1; and 3+2 jumpers, or, a simpler combination of two of the three animals-- NC, NZ, or CZ. I like the NCZ piece, but I fear that TWO of them might make for an overly complicated game. My experience with just one such piece can complicate a game almost like no other, in my opinion (as it can in Cazaux's 14x14 game Gigachess). Next, at f1 and k16 are simplified versions of your Duke from Rennchess (an 'aancha.' ((Sp.?)), I believe). They, unlike the Duke in Rennchess, may not attack via two routes, and the piece (without a name, so far) may also stop, and capture, after making only it's ortho. move. The pieces at g1 through j1, and g16 through j16 move exactly as you would expect, and the two pieces (technically gryphons, really, though nameless, again, at this point, in this game) at k1 and f16 are, again, just simplified versions of your Cavalier, but share the same movement and capture simplifications of my Duke-like piece. The three-headed pawns are corporals, and capture like a FIDE pawn, but may also make a non-capturing move one square diagonally forward (borrowed from Jean-Louis Cazaux's various games, many of which I like quite a bit!). The pawns beside the corporals are just plain, old pawns, and, in front of the K and Q, are your Guards, and move exactly as such. I thought that the 2nd and 15th rank pawns should be allowed to make a 4 to 5 square move if they've not yet moved, though I've not yet decided. Finally, pawn-wise, the shogi pawns on the 5th and 12th ranks move, and capture exactly as they would in shogi; they move one space ahead, and capture one space ahead. Why they are where they are should become more clear in a moment.*** The pieces on the 3rd and 14th ranks, specifically the cannons and the archers, represent my biggest question mark about this game (the ferz-like icons are simply ferz which can execute and capture with a one square ortho. step. or, a two, or three square ortho. leap). Ideally, I'd like the cannons and archers to be able to capture opponents pieces from afar, meaning, I'd like them to be able to 'shoot' enemy pieces without, themselves, moving, though they, them selves may move one square, king-like. Additionally, I've placed 'battlements,'-- your Castle piece icon, though these can only move one square at a time, and only straight ahead, directly in front of these 'shooting pieces,' with the idea that the configuration of these two types of pieces-- the cannons and the archers, and the battlements directly in front of them, might symbolize the 'shooters' positioning ON TOP of the battlements, and would then, thus, double thier effective 'kill' range. I think this aspect of this game sounds really cool, yet, my speculations are in no way carved in stone, either. Honestly, I'm not certain these rules would really work. My fear is that these rules might present too much of a limiting factor with regard to piece development. As a means of compromise, I've placed the shogi pawns in front of the battlements to slow their advance, as I felt that both the battlements, and the shooting pieces might advance TOO quickly, thus threatening a rather silly premature mate.*** Yet another issue: I have not resolved how the double horse icons-'cavalries'-should move. I'd like them to be able to make one or TWO knight moves in ANY direction- like, say, from k4 to l6, then to j7, and be blocked only on their 'landing' squares. As cool as the idea seems to me, again, I fear that allowing them to move as such might add more chaos-inducing, playability-diminishing complexity to this already large game. Play testing is in order.*** My God, I've written you another novella!. I'm pretty sure that you now have the basic gist of this (possibly ridiculous) game. Here is it's link:clicky here!
Game: Cataclysm Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-40-296
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Eric, here is the preset for the 16x16 game on which I've been working. It is a loose extrapolation of Ralph Betza's Chess on a Really Big Board, and employs a couple of similar pieces-one of which, the Crooked Rook, he invented, and another, the CBW, which is an enhanced version of Betza's Crooked Bishop! I do feel that, as a whole, the game is distinct enough to justify calling it a new game, rather than simply a variation of Betza's game, especially in light of some of the unique properties of it's pieces and rules. That being said, and having never 'invented' a game before, I expect nothing less than brutal honesty in your take on it's potential (or, lack there of). If it happens to intrigue you, I'll explain my tentative rules for it, as several of the pieces do not move as their icons would normally indicate, and the game has a few unorthodox rules. Should it progress to the point of requiring a set of written rules, maybe you could show me how to post them...? Ultimately, this game is definitely a chess game, albeit a large one with heavy firepower, and is in no way an attempt to fundamentally change chess itself. I think it has an awfully purdy board, as well!:) Matt's Little Big Experiment
Game: Rennaisance Chess IIc Log: sherman101-cavalier-2008-83-115
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
I'm sorry that I've yet to make a set of rules for this preset, but, lately, I've been suffering from a baffling condition characterized by inertia and extreme overwork! I'll 'get with' Eric Greenwood soon and create them!
Game: Cataclysm Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-40-296
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
ignore this...
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
...ignore this, as well...
Game: Fortress Chess Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-65-121
Game: Golden Age Chess on a Really Big Board Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-59-455
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Game: Modern Random Chess Log: j_carrillo_vii-frcec-2008-79-849
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Either player can delete any game here at any time. These (unplayed) games remind me of several Fischer Random Chess games, from years ago, which were abandoned when the players (presumably) did not like the setup they saw.

Game: Cataclysm Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-40-296
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
I found out, thanks to help from Joe Joyce, that one can not place an active URL in the comments section of a game, only in this here kibitzin' box. Here are links to four versions: one featuring a Templar knight sheild as the Courier, one with the elephant icon from Courier chess #5, one with two Guards placed where the Foxes would be in the original Rennchess; and (yet!) another placed on a 12x12 board: Rennchess II with Templar shields as Couriers; Rennchess II with elephants as Couriers; Rennchess II with Guards; and Rennchess on a 12x12 board
Game: Capablanca Random Chess Log: joejoyce-jejujeju-2008-30-526
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
thanks guys, managed it the unconventional way
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Musta been a tough night - of course it's h8, not g8 - my apologies - am resending last move if you wish to castle correctly. Joe
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
[Userid:] joejoyce
[Enter your move] i1-i1; j1-h1  works fine when I try it. 
I think that you have to enter both piece moves to castle.
Note: O-O-O would take your King to the c-file.
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
...but g8 is occupied. On this side of the board is g8 my rook's destination when castling? I was hoping it was h8...
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hey je ju; you should be able to castle just by moving the rook: j8-g8.
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Confused by this: the omega-castling (O-O, White's right side): like in FRC the king will be placed one row distant from the border (here i-file) and the rook at the next inner neighboured square...do you think I can castle by leaving the king where it is and moving j8 rook to h8? (the preset won't let me...) Or would my king go to the 3rd rank and thus be in check? Do I have any castling options at the current moment?
Game: Voidrider Chess Log: joejoyce-mschmahl-2008-52-143
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
My apologies for the illegal move, Michael. Heh, unfortunately, while I was expecting your voidrider move a couple turns ago, the only defense I had was that sideways pawn move. I believe you have just shot my battleplan to little, tiny pieces. Wanna talk about neutrinos? ;-) Anyway, it may take me a while to reply... [AaaarrrgghhhHHhhHHhhh!]
Game: Modern Random Chess Log: j_carrillo_vii-pleyades21-2008-61-043
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Luis, Para esta posici
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: tchervenkov-penswift-2008-30-533
Todor Tchervenkov Verified as Todor Tchervenkov wrote on
Hey, I just made an illegal move and I am sorry. Could you undo it?
Game: Dimension X Log: penswift-bruck-2008-30-524
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
I must apologize here for announcing checkmate... it is in Fide chess but here we actually have one more move for Black and then I (as White) will win by playing Q x K which cannot be prevented. In Dimension X a King must actually be captured... I temporarily overlooked that detail.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: bruck-moonbuzz-2006-140-834
Uri Bruck Verified as Uri Bruck wrote on
strictly speaking it isn't one of the tabiyaat. The way we played, each setting up the pieces on his half of the board, so to speak, before the actual battle started, reminded me of the tabiyaat. The wikipedia entry on shatranj has a couple of them. It's a small and inadequate sample. Murray has more, compiled from a few sources.
Game: Modern Chess Log: j_carrillo_vii-pleyades21-2008-54-961
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Los particulares del Preset de Ajedrez Moderno: Para entrar una jugada en Chess variants se necesita entrar la movida por sus coordenadas. Ejemplos: b1-c3, f8-f6, etc. No hace falta utilizar la inicial de la pieza en la mayor
Game: Golden Age Chess on a Really Big Board Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-52-396
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Why will no one play this here game with me?
Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
Why will no one play this here game with me?
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: bruck-moonbuzz-2006-140-834
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
A very pretty opening; is it a classic shatranj opening? Is there a good spot for finding shatranj openings on the internet [in English only, unfortunately... yeah, typical American :( ]
Game: Modern Chess Log: j_carrillo_vii-cvgameroom-2008-43-851
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Preset Particulars: In Chess Courrier the Minister (Bishop & Knight) is called the Archbishop, and uses the initial A for the name of the piece: White Minister=A Black Minister=a == White's pieces are in Capital letters (K=King,Q=Queen,A=Minister,R=Rook,B=Bishop,N=Knight,P=Pawn) Black's pieces are in lower case letters (k=King,q=Queen,a=Minister,r=Rook,b=Bishop,n=Knight,p=Pawn) == Castling: a-castling: White: K-c1;R-d1;-e1;-a1 Black: k-c9;r-d9;-e9;-a9 i-castling: White: K-g1;R-f1;-e1;-i1 Black: k-g9;r-f9;-e9;-i9 == Bishop-Castling: c-Bishop castling with Knight: White: B-b1;N-c1 Black: b-b9;n-c9 c-Bishop castling: White (with Minister): B-d1;A-c1 Black (with Queen) : b-d9;q-c9 g-Bishop castling with Knight: White: B-h1;N-g1 Black: b-h9;n-g9 g-Bishop castling: White (with Queen) : B-f1;Q-g1 Black (with Minister): b-f9;a-g9 == en passant: Sample 1: White's e6-Pawn takes Black's d-Pawn ([after Black's ...d8-d6] equivalent e6xd7 e.p.) -e6;P-d7;-d6 Sample 2: Black's g4-Pawn takes White's h-Pawn ([after White's h2-h4] equivalent ...g4xh3 e.p.) -g4;p-h3;-h4 == Promotions: Sample 1: White's Pawn at c8 moves to c9 and promotes to a Queen [c8-c9=Q] P c8-c9;Q-c9 Sample 2: Black's Pawn at g2 takes at h1 and promotes to a Minister (Archbishop) [hxg1=a] p g2-h1;a-h1
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Stephen, Before we go to far, I need you to know (as it is not clear from the instructions posted on CV right now), that the Bishop can actually 'castle' with either the knight or the queen/minister next to it, as long as neither piece has moved. It is optional to do the Bishop-castling (and it can only be done with one of the Bishops, but not both). This is the move that converts one of the Bishops from the black squares to the white squares. I'm working on building the preset to recognize the special rules of Modern Chess, but for the time being, we are playing the first trial game of the preset. Probably the first game ever of Modern Chess played in the internet. Thanks for trying the variation (and making history).
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Joe does have an extra piece, which he can keep, 
if I correctly remember how a cannon double-pin works.
EDIT: Somehow I failed to see ExN check!
Game: Fusion Chess Log: antoinefourriere-david_64-2008-17-701
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Sent move 14... d6-b8 and received the following message:

Array ( [0] => 1200671435 [1] => 1200757191 [2] => 1200839692 [3] => 1200919765 [4] => 1200947176 [5] => 1201016841 [6] => 1201033856 [7] => 1201099773 [8] => 1201101852 [9] => 1201285016 [10] => 1201352171 [11] => 1201365155 [12] => 1201395912 [13] => 1201614264 [14] => 1201649342 [15] => 1201712285 [16] => 1201735914 [17] => 1201791224 [18] => 1201871003 [19] => 1201880662 [20] => 1201883291 [21] => 1202205298 [22] => 1202246702 [23] => 1202256806 [24] => 1202300831 [25] => 1202365990 [26] => 1202428233 [27] => 1202491577 [28] => 1202564284 [29] => 1202564285 ) 30

1202564285 - 1202564284

Is 1 > 86400 + 1915200, which is 2001600.

It is not your turn to move. Please wait for your opponent to move.

Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Yes, darn it, it was a time-out. I've picked up far too many wins that way. On the other hand, I've had games that didn't have time limits where my opponent stopped moving, often enough in a lost or losing position, so I favor time losses. Glad I decided to go for the win - tried a risky move sequence with the cannon instead of trading it for a knight, heading into a drawn position, and asking for the draw. But somehow, I think you're right, and don't think Adrian was paralyzed by the brilliance of my last moves, lol! I suspect he was distracted by outside forces... ;-) [Go, GIANTS!] [and I'm a Jets fan] Anyway, I believe he made a move a little while ago in another game, Janus, so he's still playing.
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
what am i missing here? it doesn't look like joe is in a winning position to me. was this a timeout?
Game: Unicorn Great Chess Log: sherman101-david_64-2008-31-013
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

The Lion

The Lion is a piece invented by Ralph Betza, which he called a Half-Duck. It has been used recently with the name 'Lion' in games by David Paulowich. This piece may leap either 2 or 3 squares horizontally or vertically, or may step a single space digonally. This piece stays on squares of the same color except when it makes the somewhat awkward (0, 3) leap.

The Scout

The scout may step one square horizontally or vertically, or leap exactly three squares horizontally or vertically. Also, a Scout that has not moved yet this game has the added ability to move (once) like a Knight. Like the Knight, it is forced to change the color of the square it occupies with each move.

Piece diagrams and descriptions taken from Greg Strong's Hubbub. The Lion is used in Unicorn Great Chess. The 'War Machine' in Rose Chess XII moves like a Scout, but without 'the added ability to move (once) like a Knight'.

Game: Shatranj of Troy Log: tchervenkov-joejoyce-2007-317-625
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Now that I got that out of my system, thanks for the game. I think we went a little too defensive, though... ;-)
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Black has about a 2.5 point advantage, but I can't see it as sufficient to [allow me to] force a win, or even force the game to a decisive point. Both sides positions are defense-oriented. White has no real attack against Black, and Black is only capable of picking up a pawn but leaving a trashed position at the cost of dropping all in-hand pieces while leaving white with 1 or 2 in hand. Any serious attack black mounts can be met by a greater counter-attack, given current board geometry and the in-hand pieces of both sides. This is also true of White. As far as I can see, we've developed trench warfare on the chessboard here. Playing defensively for another 30 turns of inconclusive chess while hoping the other guy makes an exploitable blunder, and then agreeing to a draw, doesn't sound that exciting. So, much as I hate to do it, I'll accept your draw offer, Todor. After all, you might be the one to get the break - heh, you missed one chance to either mate me or at least get the advantage in pieces. About the time I dropped the rook on my back rank, you had an opportunity to drop all your pieces into my back ranks for a devastating attack... I think. That's why I played defensively then, anyhow. ;-)
Game: Rose Chess XII Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-19-956
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

The Notes section on my Unicorn Great Chess page has a link to the preset: 'Computer Play: Fergus Duniho was kind enough to playtest this game with me in 2001 and create a PBM preset here.'

Feel free to send an invitation with 'david_64' listed as the opponent. I will start the game some time in the next two weeks.

Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hey Adrian, regarding your last in-game comment, if I trade cannon for knight, we draw, because that leaves our forces perfectly even and balanced across the board: easy to defend, tough to attack.
Game: Rose Chess XII Log: sherman101-cvgameroom-2008-19-956
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

I have also had problems keeping that box unchecked. There is another way around this problem.

Shatranj Kamil X has promotion to a piece that is not in the initial setup. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GAME COURIER PRESET ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! My original game preset, which has not yet been attached to this page, places extra pieces in the center of the board and then deletes them before the first move is made. So all of the pieces used in my game will show up in the pieces list. Clicking 'Edit this preset' to see [Pre-Game: @-e5; @-f5 ], reveals how I remove the extra pieces from e5 and f5.

Matthew La Vallee Verified as Matthew La Vallee wrote on
)
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
16... e7-d6 // kxg
// well, no major blunders in this game so far... though i
// think i may have been a little hasty with CxN
17. d1-e2 
//KxC Well, it certainly has reduced some of the tension.
// Now we get to find out if a cannon and knight are
// equivalent. Enjoy.

Ralph Betza would say that the practical value of a piece is determined by the hand that holds it. This is the first such duel I have seen in a Mir Chess game. I do recall a wild position 28 moves into my game with Gary Gifford, which left me with Cannon and Elephant vs. Knight. This substantial material advantage (two pieces for the Knight) allowed me to dominate the board deep into the endgame.

http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Mir+Chess+32&log=david_64-penswift-2006-4-133

Game: Shatranj Log: lunaris-cvgameroom-2007-317-550
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Black's moves 6,14,15 in this game have the effect of castling his King. This prompted me to looks up some Shogi references:

http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gnushogi/gnushogi_18.html

There is no special castling move in shogi. The term 'castle' is used in shogi to denote a defensive formation consisting of (usually) three generals which protect the king. There are many such castles (about 40 or so have names).

Game: Templar Chess Log: joejoyce-penswift-2007-232-317
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
Thanks. It was an exciting game. And the Templar game itself is one of my favorites. An excellent game.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Well played Gary--Always like to see a mate with Templars involved!
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Nice job, Gary; congratulations! You outplayed me here; maybe I'll get ya next time. Enjoy! Joe
Game: Janus Chess Log: bruck-judgmentality-2007-316-504
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
sorry, i messed up the time controls. don't start this game.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: jejujeju-judgmentality-2007-269-570
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Jeremy, Jejujeju here. Notice that you haven't made any chess moves for awhile now. Hope things are ok. The clock is ticking on this one, you're down to about 3 days...hope you're able to move before getting timed out.
Game: Templar Chess Log: david_64-mschmahl-2007-269-569
Travis Compton Verified as Travis Compton wrote on
Cool looking game!
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-245-694
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Interesting difference in styles here. [Jeremy, you've been perfecting that style on me!] Joe
Game: Fusion Chess Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-270-699
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hey, Jeremy, I thought so, too, but... If you are good with that [a fissioning piece checking*], then I certainly am. I had no wish to spend a few moves here and there setting up a move that I then couldn't do because the rules don't allow it. * You know, the thought occurred to me that if the characteristics of pieces changed when they fuse or fission, then check could be given by a piece that was part of a compound that could not give check, or could allow 2 pieces that by themselves couldn't give check to fuse into something that could. You might also have 2 pieces fuse into 2 other pieces, though the mechanics could prevent it. Hope this paragraph makes some sense...
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Hi, Joe, I think you can give check.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Here we go again! As I cannot trust my reading of the rules, and this is a tournament game, I have to ask this question: Can a piece that has just split away from a compound piece and lands on an empty square give check, or must it move such that it cannot give check? For example, in this game, could I split my queen on d8 into a stationary rook and a bishop that goes to the rook file, on h4, with check? It's my opponent's turn; I'm sure he will be interested in the answer, too. Thank you, whomever, for any help.
Game: Moderate Progressive Chess Log: bruck-antoinefourriere-2007-269-565
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Just a reminder, Uri needs to shift back 
and repeat move 3, allowing Black to replace 
his illegal move.
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
I played an illegal move.
Game: Templar Chess Log: david_64-mschmahl-2007-269-569
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
I meant to explain that I was shifting back a move, so Black could take back his illegal castling move.
Game: Fusion Chess Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-270-699
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Thank you, Antoine, David, Abdul-Rahman. I certainly can't look for anything more authoritative than Fergus' description. Case closed. Expected this outcome, but you can't kill a guy for trying, unless, of course, you're a spy, like Nathan Hale, where they can kill you for trying. Chess is much more civilized [right!]; but I do get at least a mutator to play with from this game, if not a full-blown variant, in Fluid Chess. I find dissatisfaction with a game is quite a spur to modest variants, at least.
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
When trying to understand the code Fergus wrote for the not-functioning automated preset for his own game, you can read in the Post-move fields
die You may not capture or fuse with a piece on a fission move.;
so, yes, I think it is clear that Joe's move is not allowed, according to Fergus.
There was a contoversy in a GCT#2 Rococo game between Thomas McElmurry and Michael Madsen. Fergus decided that Peter Aronson and David Howe would get the final (and mercifully identical) say.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Joe, I think we all agree on what Fergus meant, if not on what he said. Permit me to ramble on for a while here. Suppose a master slides the White Bishop f1-b5 in a Ruy Lopez. According to the strict 'touch-move rules' FIDE passed in the 1930s, that Bishop has touched the squares e2, d3, c4, b5 and Black has the right to pick any one of those four squares and force White to move to that square. Tournament directors had to ignore that particular rule, as many high level players continued to slide their pieces across the board. Since then, players have tended to ignore how the Bishop gets from f1 to b5. And the younger players grew up on: click f1, click b5, click SEND MOVE.

Which raises a tricky question: Are we enforcing 'touch-move rules' in this tournament? To be specific, if I attempt an illegal move, can my opponent demand that I then make a legal move with the same piece?

Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Can't hold up the game too much with a question on rules. Guess I'll make this move anyway. I still don't consider the question resolved, but must continue playing. Hope I'll get a positive answer before the next move, but am not expecting any authoritative declarations. I suspect the answer, if any, won't be positive for me. As I read them, the rules are written to allow what I suggest. But there is no positive declaration that my idea is allowed, and what Abdul-Rahman says is quite true, a loose interpretation of the rules does support the negative viewpoint. Annoying, that I have to do what Fergus meant, and not what he said. Blast, in a situation like this, we need an unambiguous authority, and a backup to handle questions the authority may be asking/involved in somehow. The primary authority here [probably] should be Carlos, since he's the one continuing the tournament. The backup? Any senior member of CV, maybe. Antoine would be a very likely choice, but there are many others, and I'm not trying to stick Antoine with an unasked-for job. I do think we need to establish a structure to hanndle these sorts of things, since they seem to come up often enough.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
My understanding is different. You move a piece FROM one square TO the other. When reading games scores, people say 'Pawn TO King's Four' or 'Knight TO f3'. I would take 'to' to mean the destination square.
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: antoinefourriere-cvgameroom-2005-158-780
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Black's Pawn launch on move 19 passes over multiple pieces. The White King was launched over 8 empty squares in move 23. A Catapult is not a Cannon. It has taken me a while to wrap my head around this concept.
Game: Fusion Chess Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-270-699
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Uh, hi, David. I see you got in between Abdul-Rahman's answer and my reply. You are both very possibly right, but I'm missing it in the rules - 'it' being a definitive answer to my observation on how components fission out of a compound. And I will have to write up a brief explanation of 'Fluid Chess'. Fluid Chess allows 2 friendly pieces to occupy the same square at any time, but no more than 2. Pieces may combine and separate, like Fusion, but may not only leave one combo piece and create another on the same move, but may move through single friendly pieces. Got a few more wrinkles, but that's the basic idea. Hoping to get a more definitive answer, or an authoritative one, and fearing I'll offer up another dud variant, I remain Lost in Yonkers
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hi, Abdul-Rahman! Thank you very much for your answer. However, I would like to respectfully disagree with you. Your first and second sentences would make sense together if there was a requirement to stop in an empty square. The rules do not say that. It is merely required that the fissioning piece have an empty square to move into, which exists in the scenario I proposed. Clearly, from the empty square rule, a queen couldn't split and add either component, B or R, to an adjacent knight. Yet that does not prevent the fissioning piece from travelling farther, and there is only an ambiguity there, as it says 'to *an* empty square' [emphasis added]. But the rule also says that the component is just a component, plain and simple, once it has successfully emerged from the compound. Specifically, it is a 'simple piece'. 'Simple pieces may combine by moving...' So, unless the fissioning piece stops on an adjacent empty square [except the knight, which stops on a non-adjacent empty square], then the rules, as written, do not prohibit what I proposed, unless I am misunderstanding them. I will wait a little before moving, to have this resolved first, hopefully.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

As has just been posted, the rules do not permit Joe's move. Also, I ran a search with [Game Filter:] Fusion* and found an additional game (fragment) for 'Fusion Diamond 41', but that is all.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
'A compound piece may split into its components by moving one of its components, under its own powers of movement, to an empty square.' The empty square requirement excludes captures and fusions, when separating.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Question: if I play 2 ... N g8-f6, can I then play 3 ... B d8-f6? This move takes the B from the queen, a BR combo, and slides it two squares to merge with the knight in a BN combo. So, in 1 turn, can you legally deconstruct a queen and construct a paladin? I see no prohibition in the rules. I also cannot pull up any games to look at; when I try, all that shows are the 3 versions of this game. I assume this game must have been played before. If so, possibly error messages Jeremy got when he tried to get to the first 2 to move, and the disappearance [?] of other games are related?
Game: Active King Chess Log: judgmentality-999999999-2007-247-640
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
King can create itself a triangle of squares to which it can move repetitively. Of course, to force the king to trek more widely, one can add longer prohibition against returning to the same square.
Game: Chess on a Longer Board with a few pieces added Log: sibahi-cvgameroom-2007-124-622
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thanks, Antoine. :-)
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Sorry, my mistake. I have now replaced the faulty def halfling onboard where #1 + - file #1 file #0 cond > file #1 file #0 -1 1 + - rank #1 rank #0 cond > rank #1 rank #0 -1 1; by def halfling onboard where #1 + - file #1 file #0 cond > file #1 file #0 -1 cond == file #1 file #0 0 1 + - rank #1 rank #0 cond > rank #1 rank #0 -1 cond == rank #1 rank #0 0 1; which should work also when the halfling stays on the same rank or file.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
i typed exactly this : -- g10-e10 -- and it tells me this : -- This preset now uses the new code for identifying check, checkmate, and stalemate. Let me know of any problems with it. You may not move a o from g10 to e10 -- I mean, even the grammar doesn't hold !!
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Should work, Abdul-Rahman. The preset is rules-enforced so it will change automatically to a halfling bishop. So if you tried to manually change it, it won't work. Try again?
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Does the preset have a bug or something ? It doesn't allow me to move my changeling from g10-e10 .. Or is it something in the rules I don't understand ? the page says they're absolute halflings, not relative halflings.
Game: Cataclysm Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-161-466
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Yeah, lol. This was a total accident, no disrespect meant. I saved some experimentation to the wrong preset. I will change it back.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hey Greg - Jeremy was looking at an alternate piece set, and flipped the pieces here to it, but hasn't yet flipped them back - I'm waiting for him to do so, so I can move a piece I understand...lol
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
What happened here? It looks like pieces have suddenly changed (both placement and icon.)
Game: Cannons of Chesstonia Log: jejujeju-david_64-2007-232-312
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Thanks for the game. My cannon showed up too late for the battle!
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
....yeah, and I'm tempted to play Q d1-a8 // check...but guessing you'd find some 'technical' illegality associated with that too!! Seriously though...oops! Was too focused on the impending onslaught of bishops and queen on my fragile king's little corner of the world to even notice the rook up there. My bad. If you could, as the computer thinks it's your turn, you can, with my permission, type 'won' or type 'g2-h1; r-g2; (your move)' or type 'g2-h2;r-h2 // check' and I'll make a different move (Q d1-a8 // check?)...guess typing 'resign' would also be an option, but it may not be legal if it follows my illegal move. Good game, you crushed me. Sorry for the goof up.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
While I am tempted to play 22... RxK, 
the game rules mention 'checkmate' and 'stalemate', 
so I have to call 22. KxR an illegal move.
Game: Texas Two-Step: an obscure political commentary Log: carlos-jejujeju-2007-249-291
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hi, Je Ju. Sorry for the ambiguous answer, but I couldn't resist. :-( I wrote the rules so the answer to that question would be ambiguous, as you realized when you got my politically safe 'yes'. I hope winning this game eases the pain of that answer. [You've obviously won, since Carlos and you both believe the knights do have legal moves.] Thank you for actually trying this out. When I designed it, I pushed pieces a lot, and decided it's a good training device, if nothing else. I think at best it's all but impossible to win by your maneuverings, but very easy to lose; one misstep is about all it takes unless your opponent doesn't capitalize on it. This game may not be winnable in a traditional sense. Joe
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Due to the clever ambiguity of the response, I hereby rescind the prematurely expressed gratitude...but will (hopefully) use the nonspecific response to my advantage.
Game: Moderate Progressive Chess Log: david_64-judgmentality-2007-245-682
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you too.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you, too, David, I hope you enjoyed playing Moderate Progressive Chess, an excellent variant.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Thanks for the game. My knights really got to show off!
Game: Texas Two-Step: an obscure political commentary Log: carlos-jejujeju-2007-249-291
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Yes. ;-) [This *is* a 'political' game]
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Carlos and I have decided to see how this one plays out... Question regarding the two-step limitation. Can a knight (or related piece) make a standard knight move or does that violate the two step rule? (or is a knight's standard move deemed to be one ortho and one diagonal as opposed to 2+1?) Thanks in advance. Jejujeju and carlos carlos
Game: Cataclysm Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2007-86-767
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
The setup: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=16778 Joe's comment: (where he called it Paroxysm) http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=16779
Game: Moderate Progressive Chess Log: david_64-judgmentality-2007-245-682
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Guess I screwed up. That's okay. Let's just continue.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

I am counting five moves for Jeremy on turn 3:

two Knight moves, two Pawn moves and O-O-O.

His 'b8-d8;' was a null move, as the b8 square was empty.

Game: Cataclysm Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2007-86-767
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Eh? Paroxysm? What's this? I want in. What's the link?
Game: Cataclysm Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2007-218-136
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I had been worried about 34. h5-d9.
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: joejoyce-cvgameroom-2007-171-628
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Hi, Joe. Yes, once someone figures out how to un-mangle those badly mangled ASCII diagrams in Sam's piece, then I can probably feel good about putting the silly complementarity piece there. Here I do it using the command pre...ascii.../pre There I don't know how. Btw, neat that Grand Shatranj uses three of those 16/2 pieces!
Game: Rococo Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-232-968
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
I modified George's 7th move.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Is there a special notation for denoting a Mutual Destruction Swapping move? We haven't been able to get that in our game yet here.
Game: Makruk Log: lunaris-cvgameroom-2007-238-604
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Sorry, move 2 please send back for one-square B, not two
Game: Voidrider Chess Log: mschmahl-neoliminal-2007-232-320
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
sorry guys, i mistakenly assigned this as a tournament game. please ignore it as a tournament game. of course, feel free to play it out. or just call it a draw. unfortunately, i don't seem to have the power to delete tournament games, even if i assigned them. maybe someone else can if they see this.
Game: Fugue Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2007-200-632
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Shield error again.
Game: Mini Roccoco Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-229-094
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Actually, no, not true, an orphan queen (or victim queen [to be more precise, a piece that captures as an orphan but moves as a queen]) is more powerful than a chameleon because an orphan queen can generalize the manner in which it is attacked to win any other piece, whereas a chameleon can only win the piece that it resembles while being observed by it. It seems quite common for people to invent chess variants that they never end up even playing themselves.
Game: Mamra Chess with Wuss Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-219-498
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
You're right. By move 13 it was lost for White, but what about 10. c2-c3? That might have worked for you.
Game: Anti-King Chess II Log: adrian-sam_trenholme-2007-232-275
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
How did I end up playing this game? I thought I made it clear that I can not play timed games because of my network connection. Please delete this game.

- Sam

Game: Fugue Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2007-200-632
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Last Archer move-take illegal because of Shield, just send it back, Jeremy.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-107-745
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
In the final position, White exploits double pin spoken of in kibbitz about move 32. Neither queen nor pawn can take queen because of Falcon pin! Very nice final position.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Hi, George. Okay, that's probably because I tried to keep it with the rules enforced and I probably needed to make some adjustment. I deleted the game that you 'lost on time' because you couldn't make a move. Now you should be able to move but the rules won't be enforced for now (but later I'll work on that.) [Deleted the other game that you have too little time to play. Now all that's left is the untimed game. Try and see if you can make a move in that. Sorry about this! Cheers, George.]
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Falcon RNFB Preset does not allow a move. I already just lost one of those with no one making a single move, Jeremy, and another one my move impossible to play with 3 days left, because of my making the Falcon ones timed now.
Game: Mini Roccoco Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-229-094
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I want to protest, '...but you invented it!' Fergus Duniho invented Supremo and the Pushmepullyu and he doesn't care much for such games either. [This may not be an accurate way to describe his attitude; his actual wording to me, 'I've never gotten into Ultima variants, even my own.'] I like your idea though of starting the pieces out in the forbidden zone. Looks interesting. I wonder how you can dislike ('hate' even) the chameleon but apparently like the querquisite. [Chameleon can also be described as an orphan that can move like a non-capturing queen.] In some variants with superpowerful pieces, I'm finding the Chameleon to be an essential defensive piece.
Game: Avalanche Chess Log: judgmentality-rodriguez-2007-232-291
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you, Joe. I overlooked that. We will have to go back and re-play.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Gentlemen, are you using the following rule: 'This pawn move, called a 'push', is always a single space, and never a capture'? If so, I believe white's move 3 is illegal.
Game: Mini Roccoco Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-229-094
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Sorry, but this kind of games is not really my cup of tea.
Game: Chess with Promoters Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-186-917
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Meant to type f2-f3; N-f3. Please eliminate f2 pawn for me.
Game: Fugue Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2007-200-632
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
By moving shield forward, Black protects that pawn from being captured by your archer. So, re-doing my last move.
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: judgmentality-mschmahl-2007-18-673
Michael Schmahl Verified as Michael Schmahl wrote on
I'm not sure. Try it with 46. K g4-g5
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
On move 46, I was able to announce a mate in 5. But did I have a forced mate from move 42, the moment I could drop my Amazon?
Game: Magicpawns Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-221-566
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Mats, Great, thanks. I'll let juan rod know so he can move. Thanks, guys.
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
I was misled by the strange moves so I didn't check the preset properly. There is a bug in the preset which I've fixed now. Please try again. I've also fixed so that you can see the rules when clicking the rules button. /Mats
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-mschmahl-2007-89-472
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I wrote to Gary to forward this good question and he wrote back: 'I am short on time here; but... Yes - A time traveling move is still a timetraveling move. You must think of the time travels as alternate histories.'
Game: Magicpawns Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-221-566
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Looks like every time Black attempts to capture a piece in this game, it is rejected with a 'you may not capture your own piece' statement. Needless to say, this is a major problem in the preset. You got around this problem on move 11 with:

11... d5- ;d8-d5 //qxp and you should be able to get around this problem on move 14 with:

11... d5- ;c6-d5 //pxq

je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
More information ... We were having problem with moves as early as move 3, and used some 'creative' commands to get the pieces where we intended them to be. This may have caused confusion for the preset. The reason I entered the Queen move from a2-d5 in the manner I did originally was because when I entered just a2-d5 it didn't swap the pawn and queen as intended (I don't remember what it did or said - and if I'd have entered Q a2-d5 it may have worked, but I didn't try that). As we were using creative commands as early as move 3, do you think we should just delete the game and reenter the commands correctly?
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Mats, Thanks for your input and advice. We went back a few moves and tried again, this time I think I input the white queen move correctly. Still, when black tries to take the white queen with his black pawn, the preset informs him it is illegal to take his own piece. Any ideas? Anyone? Thanks in advance.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-mschmahl-2007-89-472
Michael Schmahl Verified as Michael Schmahl wrote on
I have to pause here, because I am unsure of the rules. Each player is limited to two backwards-time-traveling moves. Am I considered to have used up one of my backwards-time-traveling moves, even though it has been preempted by one of your such moves?

Game: Elephant Hunt Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-128-723
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
George, I just made an illegal move...sorry. Meant to move g7-e9. If you could correct that when you make your next move I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Jejujeju
Game: Magicpawns Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-221-566
juan rodriguez Verified as juan rodriguez wrote on
ok, i tried going back and changing the entered move to Q a2-d5 so that I could then take white's queen with my pawn. It still didn't work. Then I tried (starting after the queen move to d5) to enter in p c6-d5 and it keeps saying 'you may not capture your own piece' The queen move is fine unless it somehow impeeds on the subsequent pawns move. Its the pawn capture that i'm having trouble with. Is it my notation?
juan rodriguez Verified as juan rodriguez wrote on
thanks, i'll try it...
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
Hi! It's not the preset! In order to move the queen from a2 to d5 white has input a strange move: a2-d5;Q-d5 It's a minus sign there, too. I do not know what this means. To move the queen one should simply input: Q a2-d5 This form of faulty input should really be stopped by the Game Courier software. If you want to continue the game you only need to back a move and input a proper move. /Mats
juan rodriguez Verified as juan rodriguez wrote on
i'm having trouble making moves in magicpawn chess. i, juan, am trying to take jeju's queen with my pawn, a perfectly legal move in any game, but the preset won't allow it. any ideas???
Game: Ferzes vs. Wazirs Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-188-624
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you, David. Just the link I was looking for, and interesting to see that Betza himself recommends his own test of their relative strength. I will want to try that too!
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

See Ralph Betza's page on Mobility, Forwardness, Distance, Colorboundness, Capture, where he writes: 'Distance: a less obvious reason for the difference in strength between the Wazir and Ferz is that the Ferz has a longer move than the Wazir. The Wazir has a move of length 1.0, the Ferz has a move of length 1.4 ( the square root of two ).'

Regarding Betza's statement, in the endgame a piece may need to move quickly from (b2) to (h8). In Midgard Chess I pointed out that this takes:

[3] moves for a War Elephant

[4] moves for a Knight or a War Machine

[6] moves for a King or a WD (Wazir+Dabbabah).

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Black is in zugzwang.
Game: Fool's Hexagonal Chess Log: grayhawke-cvgameroom-2006-329-607
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Losing on time doesn't necessarily mean that you can't keep playing, if your opponent agrees to finish. Time endings don't lock games. Just a thought.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Terribly sorry about that.
Game: Ferzes vs. Wazirs Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-188-624
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on

I designed this preset with the notion that it would help me to achieve a better understanding of which might be superior, ferzes or wazirs. Greg Strong contended that because ferzes have more forward mobility, they are stronger. I guess this is what Betza may have contended somewhere (though I don't know exactly where -- can someone find that passage for me?). However, my own experimentation has suggested that actually wazirs are superior because of their ability to change colors, hence greater overall mobility.

Without pawns, the two sides draw, but with pawns, I'm not sure. I guess the right computer could solve this quickly, right?

Now your idea, Abdul-Rahman, complicates the issue considerably (in a very good way), and opens up an angle that I hadn't thought about in this context: Namely that pawns move like forward wazirs and capture like forward ferzes. In a sense, it speaks to the issue at hand, but in a very confusing way. Now it turns out that the issue of which pawn to use may be quite critical to the analysis at hand.

Eric Greenwood gave me permission to quote him but with the caveat that 'it's all theory, untested':

'Unless they capture, they're stuck on the same color square. If it's regular pawns, the ferzes might have an advantage because they can support a pawn advance more easily than the wazirs. With Berolina pawns, on the other hand, the wazirs would have the advantage, since they can both block and support a capture whereas all the ferzes can do is block.'

Eric noted that there are also advantages for both to either, but I haven't get the chance to explore the discussion with him as fully as I wanted. At any rate, I'm inspired enough to test all the permutations so thanks for the good idea.

Game: Falcon Chess RFNB Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-202-564
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Black beats me here in just two moves. ;-)
Game: Pawnless Ecumenical Chess Log: judgmentality-charles_gilman-2006-173-354
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
How do you like that? I got checkmated in one move -- by Black! That's a first for me, I think, and a new low. lol.
Game: Cataclysm Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-161-466
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
If you want to play this game with a King's Leap, I like Joe's suggestion, unmoved king jumps directly to corner squares a1 or p1 (for White) best, of course not allowed if in check...
Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-191-720
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
A Lemurian Sliding General moves like the Sliding General in Lemurian Shatranj. In other words, it moves to all the squares a squirrel-guard does, only it slides and can slide a maximum of two moves away from its starting square.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
This is the same question that's coming up in the topics Shatranj Values and ChessboardMath, the values of pieces. How do these things actually relate to one another? Our 'atoms' are wazirs and ferzs, rather chunky for fine gradations. But Hullabaloo, goChess, and a modest number of other games, depend very much on accurate answers. A key question there is: what pieces do we actually figure out next? But here, sure go ahead, add the pieces, if you think they fit. I will ask just how a Lemurian Sliding General moves.
Game: Two Kings Falcon Chess Log: judgmentality-peteraronson-2007-211-677
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Ah, yes, Peter, thank you. I fixed that problem. If you want to play this with me, why not log in from the PBM logs page?
Peter Aronson Verified as Peter Aronson wrote on
This looks like a challange, but I haven't received an e-mail yet. Also, when I click on view, I see:
This preset for Falcon Chess should enforce rules and spot check,
checkmate, and stalemate.
Illegal move on turn 0:The move do is not well-formed.Go back and try again.
Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-191-720
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Joe, I didn't think to say this when I posted my move so I'm saying it here and hoping for some feedback:

I'm thinking I should add another link, a 'missing link,' in between what is currently listed .E4 and .E5, a double moving ferz (without null - rifle ability); likewise, double-moving wazir in between .D4 and .D5 and Lemurian Sliding General in between .J4 and .J5. This would lengthen the evolution to 7 for each series (.E7, .D7, .J7). If you agree this might be a good idea, would you mind if I go ahead and just subbed those things in here?

Also, building on your remark in the game, Joe, about constructed AMPs that can be deconstructed. How about a .J8 being a Precious Commoner? Would that be worth trying out?

Game: Ibu Ibu Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-167-107
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
'Balanced Marseillais' specifically refers to the 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, etc. order... As opposed to 'Classical Marseillais' which does initiate the game with a 2 move for white, so the analysis here is correct. This game was created mostly just as a conceptual device to show how one might actually have a game that uses the ubi ubi successfully.

One way of making it slightly less chaotic is to have a rule that states: King may move only when under check. Still, it's basically a poorly designed game that needs improvement, some more powerful and interesting pieces perhaps? The entourage could use some tweaking too perhaps.

Meanwhile, I remain deeply dissatisfied with this game and I'm hopeful a much more playable game might be created. One problem with this game is that the king's entourage is so successful at overcoming the problem of the Ubi-Ubi that the Ubi-Ubi doesn't really get a chance to do much. So I'm not sure I succeeded in my initial purpose. Maybe my musings in the notes, about even more powerful pieces, might lead us somewhere down the road towards a more successful variant.

Perhaps a much weaker entourage. Maybe instead of those pieces, neutral, immobile stones that can't capture but that can be captured.

The Alice versions are under repair. There are some complicated rules that need to be sorted out. I've been confused about it for many months. I don't advise playing them.

Game: Mamra Chess Log: judgmentality-jejujeju-2007-206-501
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
When white played 8. c4xf7, white assumed that Black would have to take bishop with mamra instead of king. But it turns out taking with king seems to work even better. [Added note: Or maybe not but it was unexpected. If White advances Mamra instead of moving the queen, Black Mamra takes queen and then Black Mamra comes back to defend g6 square with Mamra.]
Game: Wuss II Log: judgmentality-jejujeju-2007-206-500
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I believe that Black has no effective defense by move 5 and will lose.
Game: Cobra Chess Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-172-509
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
On move 7, for white: bishop takes cobra.
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2007-205-888
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Hmmm...might be an interesting line. Still might be an interesting line.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Better alternative may have been 8.h5-h6, with discovered attack against Marshall at j7 forcing i5-g4 (alternative j7-h8 allows h6-i7, with forking win of piece) after which I'm not sure...
Game: Multimove FIDE Chess Log: judgmentality-davidjhowe-2007-203-630
David Howe Verified as David Howe wrote on
Multiple displacement moves are allowed. However, the points add up fast, expecially with pieces moving more than once.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, in your rules, you do not specifically say that multiple displacement moves are prohibited. (Or do you?) So could the same piece capture more than one piece? [Added note: After I re-read the rules and saw the penalty for moving the same piece more than once, this became less of a concern to me]
Game: Mamra Chess with Wuss Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2007-202-747
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Here Dan beats me in just three moves.
Game: Hostage Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-191-717
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Okay, problem solved. It WAS because I misnotated.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
it wouldn't let me pass
Game: EIGHT-STONE CHESS Log: jejujeju-carlos-2007-189-545
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Carlos, hope you haven't forgotten about our game. Just a heads up, you have only 3 days left on the clock... I'd hate to beat you on time again...
Game: Hostage Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-191-717
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I think maybe i was supposed to play p*e4 -- why don't you pass and I'll try to get it right this time.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I don't know. but now I can't drop my pawn. it says 'you cannot move your opponent's pieces'
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I thought I entered this right, but I shouldn't have that pawn in my airfield, I don't think. Did I do something wrong? Talking about black's move 8.
Game: FIDE Chess Kamil Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2007-185-586
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
The threat would then be b4-c2; a6-b4 which would win white's queen.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
An interesting way to play this particular variant of FIDE Chess Kamil (and also speed things up) would be to say that not only does the extra piece substitute when the original vacates its home square, but that piece then has to follow the original piece around until the original is captured. For example on Black's move 15 if black moves a6-b5, the b8 archbishop must then occupy the square the bishop previously occupied at a6. This would be possible because all of the extra pieces retain the original pieces' type of movement.
Game: Trophy-Hunt Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-82-767
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
When Black made his fifth move, he forgot that Squirrels (Greenwood likes to call them *Fortresses) can capture like a knight, in addition to alfil and dabbaba. [*corrected]
Game: Torus Standard Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-82-768
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
via d1, e8, f7
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
how does the queen go from c2 to g6?
Game: Falcon Chess with Dragon and Scorpion Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-198-486
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Sorry. Problem fixed. :-)
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Duh !! How come black starts ?
Game: Falcon Chess with Dragons and Scorpions Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-137-852
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Okay for preset, Abdul-Rahman, for CPermChess, whichever way to link up Rules. How about other FC 8x10 Preset with your suggestion 'RFNB...' to start to discriminate if one has edge? Also Queen Full Board okay, I think you mean one with Scorpion and Dragon too.
Game: Rapacious Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-200-549
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I meant to say this in the rules too: If one of the Warp Points is captured, the remaining one works in partnership with the king. This variant is purely experimental, totally untested.
Game: Falcon Chess with Dragons and Scorpions Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-137-852
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Nice, I never saw the web page for Complete Permutation Chess. It looks like a nice variant. I can make a preset with a write-up to the rules (either as a link to the page, or, if it's deleted, in the preset's page itself.) If you give me the green light I'll put it in my to-do list. By the way, the Queen Full Board variant is 13x13, I miscounted the files!! You could add empty ranks and files around the board though, kinda like the board of 12x12 Chess. (In an unrelated note, my name is Abdul-Rahman, not just Abdul. Nothing important, just a little annoyance.)
Game: Rococo Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-191-788
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Except would have swapped, then AxS, then LL adjacent to A
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
For Black's tenth move: Instead of recapturing on c00, a good move might have been to move my advancer to f1.
Game: Falcon Chess with Dragons and Scorpions Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-137-852
Peter Aronson Verified as Peter Aronson wrote on
Don't worry about it -- I'll figure it out at some point.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Peter, I would so like to be able to follow your instructions, but unfortunately, I don't know how. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't know my way around the innards of this website very well. Sorry.
Peter Aronson Verified as Peter Aronson wrote on
Jeremy, I'm at work and don't have access to my admin password. Could you do two things for me? First, delete complete-permutation.zip from the zillions directory if it is still there. Second, remove the deleted mark from the index entry for Complete Permutation Chess. Thanks!

PS: If you're feel like it, could you simply remove the whole 'Computer Play' section from Complete Permutation Chess page?

George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
We were hoping for & thinking of requesting a GC Preset for CompPChess, a neat 'idea game', when Abdul commented June 2007 about unusual FC variants. Or maybe Joe Joyce's concurrent Comment. I hope JGood is able to make Preset for CPC. It is misunderstanding that anyone objects most any FC CV in Game Courier; GC was new at the time CPC 16x8 disappeared. If you make Preset, Jeremy, please challenge me to game; and though rules self-explanatory I hope Aronson makes write-up available again. Abdul's FC Comment 27.June.07 of 15x15 compounds would be related CV.
Peter Aronson Verified as Peter Aronson wrote on
Jeremy, I de-indexed Complete Permutation Chess as George requested me to take it down. I did not realize this would leave it searchable. I guess we'd better just delete it.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
As a matter of fact, the game Complete Permutation Chess does not appear to be indexed, though one may find it by doing a web search.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thank you. I hadn't been aware of complete permutation chess. Will try to make a preset.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Aronson calls Falcon+Queen 'Winged Amazon' in Complete Permutation Chess(2003). Any of those Falcon compounds in presets fine, but did not want them in Zillions. We just think of difference between Z. and Game Courier as commercial versus non-commercial. I would rather not distinguish every case which Falcon-compound usages are USP5690334 for 'write-ups'. So, solution is just to notify of a 'Preset' planned using Falcon, or make your own Falcon games on 8x8 or smaller for 'new invention'. It is still true that, except for a dozen enthusiasts, Jeremy, myself, Abdul, Bogot, Lavieri, most games do not get played much. Same for other families of games than Falcon, for ex., the Rococo-Maxima family. So, our philosophies differ: it makes sense to those playing Falcon since 1992, pre-CVPage, to settle on 5 or 10 versions with Falcon-Scorpion-Dragon rather than multiplicity. We still await Abdul's simple alteration 'R-F-N-B', written in my old notebooks, on 8x10. But if Jeremy wants some Lemurian Falcon mix to play once or twice, go for it, in Game Courier. Thanks for interest and recent Falcon Comments, as said e-mail.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: evader23-cvgameroom-2007-198-835
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Black blundered by saying 'to move 8' Had black removed a pawn on move 6 and said move 7, that would have been impossible for white to counter effectively. Had black removed the queen and said move 7, I think white might have found a temporary defense. White blundered on move 7 by saying 'move 9'. Had white said something like Move 17, white could have won a piece by move 8. As it happens, I believe white will be forced to lose at least the exchange.
Game: Falcon Chess with Dragons and Scorpions Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-137-852
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Thanks George, for the very interesting info. You know what types of pieces might be very interesting? Compounds involving the Falcon family. For example, a Falcon Queen, a Scorpion Queen and a Dragon Queen, but all sorts of other compounds. A Falcon - Scorpion, etc. Also, a Falcon is weaker than a Bison, but a Falcon that was capable of capturing along any of its multipath routes would obviously be a very, very strong piece that might fit very well into a very powerful army (such as the Lemurian FIDE pieces which move as one FIDE piece then another, for example, a Lemurian cardinal moves as knight then bishop or bishop then knight).
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
For 8 ranks I think they are slightly behind Falcon despite having more squares within 9x9 and 11x11 from a central square. So, Falcon 6.5, Scorpion 6.1, Dragon 5.7 here. Once there are ten ranks it would go more like Falcon 6.0, Scorpion 6.4, Dragon 6.8. By 12x12 board Falcon probably equalizes with Rook around 5.0--keeping Pawns close to 1.0.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
George, what do you estimate to be the relative values of Falcon, Scorpion and Dragon on this board? (Anyone?)
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-107-745
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Mmm, very nice observation that illustrates beautifully pinning power of fascinating falcon piece.
Game: The Toddler Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-188-540
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Ah, okay! Didn't see this until today. I've excluded the pieces not used in the opening. However, I can't correct the displayed pieces in the rule summary below the board, oddly enough. Could I ask you to just ignore it? I don't actually know how to do those rule summaries myself. If it bothers you a lot, let me know and I can make a new preset that won't have those rules below it.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-107-745
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Look at position Move 32 in this two-weeks-suspended game. White can take Queen with Pawn-g2 and with Knight-g1. But he cannot because of Falcon then checking White King.
Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-191-720
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
But meanwhile, let's try with the four move rule. Maybe even try three move rule after that before trying two move. Let's just see how long we can last. lol. Should be fun.
Game: Airplane Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-187-053
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Thank you for that comment. Was wondering precisely about that. Cheers!
Game: Alice Chess with extra pieces Log: adrian-judgmentality-2007-187-975
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
I am wondering, if someone could create am Alice Chess preset where the pieces on Board B look upside down. Can anyone do it ?
Game: Ferzes vs. Wazirs Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-188-624
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Duplicated
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
You know what's cool? One side having Berlin pawns.
Game: The Toddler Log: judgmentality-sibahi-2007-188-540
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Hmm, this looks interesting I'll accept this if you do me the favor of checking the 'Exclude pieces not in setup' square and correct the icons in the Rules summary. (How do you do one of those rule summaries, btw?)
Game: Airplane Chess Log: jejujeju-rodriguez-2007-187-053
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Ed Friedlander's applet shows correctly how the Airplane moves. Check it out. To sum it up, it jumps to ANY vacant square on the same rank, file or diagonal. If it jumps to a square immediately behind an enemy piece that piece is captured.
Game: HyperModern Shatranj Log: sibahi-cvgameroom-2007-73-441
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Just re-do your sixth move and we're good.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
The mistake is very understandable since the icon looks similar to the sliding general of Lemurian Shatranj which can switch direction in the middle of its movement. Of course, the Chu Shogi lion is a slightly different creature altogether, with its strange capturing rules and ability to return to the same square.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Hmm .. Obviously I made a mistake in this game. The Sliding General is a Q2 .. but I understood it to be like a Chu Shogi Lion. Would you rather continue the game or start a new one ?
Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-david_64-2007-179-865
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Thanks for the invite, but I am cutting back on my internet chess. Catch you in the tournament.
Game: Dave's Silly Example Game Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-172-017
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I must also beg to differ with your analysis. The rules state that there are no captures, but that it is otherwise as with usual chess. It is stated that there are no legal moves in the notes, not the rules. While an implication of the rules is that there are no legal moves, this is not clearly stated in the rules, but rather in the notes.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I can not rescind my claim of victory unless you go back and re-do your first move, make another move, perhaps a pass on your first move... I will be happy then to rescind my claim of victory, but I must warn you that it is not likely I shall later admit defeat.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
I did not make a legal move. The rules clearly state there are no legal moves. Therefore, I made an illegal move. The specific illegal move made was capture of the king, which, as we all know, is not legal in FIDE. So, either I won, or the move has to be replayed. In either case, you could not have won. You must rescind your claim of victory! ;-)
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
White made an illegal move. Rules state that no capturing is allowed.
Game: Alice Chess Log: kezier-cvgameroom-2007-172-739
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
If you are looking for an opponent, do not enter your name in both places.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: jejujeju-carlos-2007-94-107
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
So, this morning this one said at the top JeJu HAS WON ON TIME with the smaller lower line: blank. Now it says, JeJu HAS WON (big)/ smaller lower line: JeJu has won on time. Now it corresponds to the style of 15June JeJu-Duke better. Poor Carlos too, I think, oh well.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-jeffs_academy-2007-154-082
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
I did notice the time getting short, I think we were both at about 2 days and change, both taking about an 8 hour loss presumably while the other slept, and then there was one occassion of you missing a cycle and losing a day or so that I retained. All rough numbers, but I think I was just over a day left when you had 7 hours or so...and after that you didn't move before time expired. If setting with no grace period, 14 days might be more practical than 7 days. Regarding the wording on the top of either our game or the one with Carlos...I have no idea how/why they would be different or how/why one might change 57 days after its completion.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: jejujeju-carlos-2007-94-107
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
The larger banner at the top said 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME', a couple hours ago. Now it says only 'JeJu HAS WON'. So, someone is following this discussion and doing some clean-up programming. Likely time ran out here for Carlos, maybe time ran out in some sense in 15.June.07 JeJu-Duke for Duke. But this is peculiar change to take place today.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-jeffs_academy-2007-154-082
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
In the last two hours, the large banner at the top of the 57-day-old game JeJu-Carlos 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME' has been changed to 'JeJu HAS WON'. I saw it today, made copy and wrote words of the large banner in the Comment just below. It's now gone, changed today. The full wording now is dropped to the secondary mini-banner, which said nothing before. So too I wonder whether JeJu yourself saw time ticking away to small numbers in 15June Duke-JeJu, despite no Grace Time, or how evenly the Time went down. Understandable motivation on my part too even in friendly non-tournament play. No really great moment, just intriguing, and I'll pick up our Elephant Chess, JeJu before long.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
JeJu, your game with Carlos recorded 57 days ago says 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME,' same Falcon Chess Preset. This one says 'JeJu HAS WON.' I remembered seeing that Jeju-Carlos game before, and noting the discrepancy made two Comments right away June 15, this Kibitz and regular. I admit I never checked off a timed invitation until this June 2007, annoyed by other delays. Since our game we always moved every day, and oftener in couple of spates, I am just studying what intervention, or shortcoming in parameters, makes for the different wording and purported result.
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
George, I can't move and have no idea how to re-set. The reason the game ended is that you ran out of time. This game had 0 seconds of grace period, so when it was your turn and you hadn't moved, or my turn and I hadn't moved, the clock ticked and additional time was never given when a timely move was made. Both of our clocks were getting low, but yours got there first. As I accepted your invitation for this game, I assumed you were aware of the time settings. I kind of like the idea of a ticking clock, but probably doesn't work so well when the players are in very different time zones.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
I just checked with a move in this game, and it vanished. I certainly didn't hit Status, je ju, so please correct and play on. Or Editor please correct. GW Duke
Game: Midgard Chess Log: david_64-brainburner-2007-132-067
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

EMAIL notification for this move took 22 minutes to arrive. I had already spotted your move on Game Courier Game Logs. The internet is full of mysteries.

Game: Rococo Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2005-279-312
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

'Many presets are now programmed to update the status automatically, and for those that aren't, there are commands available for updating it from the Moves field. If you have won a game, enter won to mark your victory.'

Todor: you need to send won as your move, then this game will be recorded as over.

Game: Opulent Lemurian Shatranj Log: david_64-joejoyce-2007-138-825
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Third time lucky? Joe, you need to adjust your wandering pawn!
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-124-722
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
If [f8-h8] does not do the job, then see if [f8-h8; j8-g8] works. WARNING: I have not checked to see how far the King actually travels in this variant.
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
what commands do i use to castle in this game?
Game: Desert Pub Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2007-134-946
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Move the piece to the square it MOVES to, like ( f4-d4 ) and then remove the captured piece, like ( e4- ). The full move would be written like ( f4-d4;e4- ) in case of multiple captures, just repeat the process ( f4-d4; e4-; d4-d6; d5- ).
Game: Middle Board Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2007-108-467
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
It would be easier to type moves if the middle board was simple a1, a2 not Ba1 and Ba2. Then any move would be either e2-e4 or Ce2-e4 Just a thought.
Game: Alice Chess Log: fergus-joejoyce-2007-73-090
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Total Time: 11 days, 22 hours, 48 minutes, 14 seconds Remaining Time: less than zero seconds 
 
Elapsed: 13 days, 19 hours, 56 minutes, 5 seconds 

I just ran a search under 'fergus' and came up with the figures above.  Well, I am officially confused now.
Game: Dead Ringers Chess Log: rodriguez-cvgameroom-2007-114-488
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
Game: Alice Chess Log: fergus-joejoyce-2007-73-090
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Fergus, I had noticed a discrepancy in time but did not realize it was so great. I had planned on emailing you this evening about this, thinking you had some days left but were getting to the end of your time. Given that the available information that all could see was that you did have time left, I would be most willing to have a time adjustment. Truthfully, I would rather lose by playing than win by not playing. My sincere apologies for not contacting you last week. I encourage you to consider an adjustment. Joe
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
There seems to be a discrepancy between how Game Courier calculates remaining time and how the Logs page does it. Game Courier says I have no time left, whereas the Logs page says I have 11 days left. I assume Game Courier is correct and I need to fix the Logs page to match it. So that I have data for making the right adjustment, I will refrain from moving until I can fix the Logs page. You win. You had the advantage, and I was taking too long to move.
Game: Dead Ringers Chess II Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2007-110-784
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
Game: Football Chess Log: jejujeju-carlos-2007-108-522
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i mean a2 and a3 (not b2 and b3)...
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: judgmentality-mjjoyce3-2006-140-557
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
When I attempt to move I get this msg:

Syntax Error on line 1

%0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde - %20a%0A%2F%2F%20point%20or%20so%2C%20because%20the%20double-jump%20is%20not%20considered.%20The%0A%2F%2F%20high%20priestess%20should%20be%20worth%20about%20as%20much%20as%20the%0A%2F%2F%20archbishop%2C%20no%3F%20That%27s%20about%207%2C%20so%2Cgive%20a%20point%20for%20the%0A%2F%2F%20jump%2C%20and%20you%20have%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess%20both%20worth%0A%2F%2F%20about%208...%0A18.%20g5-i6%20%0A18...%20f6-h7%20%2F%2F%20hmmm%2C%20I%20am%20down%20a%20pawn%20here...%0A19.%20h3-h4%20%0A19...%20j8-j7%20%2F%2F%20You%20seem%20to%20have%20developed%20an%20edge%20in%20this%20game.%0A20.%20i6-h5%20%0A20...%20i7-i6%20%0A21.%20h5-i4%20%0A21...%20h9-f7%20%0A22.%20g4-g5%20%0A22...%20f7-i4%20%2F%2FOxH%0A%2F%2F%20surprise%3F%20Happy%20Easter%21%0A23.%20j3-i4%20%0A%2F%2F%20That%20move%20did%20surprise%20me%20but%20it%20looks%20like%20a%20good%20move%0A%2F%2F%20for%20you.%0A23...%20b9-d8%20%2F%2F%20Now%2C%20if%20I%20can%20keep%20you%20from%20any%20good%20moves...%0A24.%20h4-h5 is not a valid expression, because %0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde is not a recognized piece, coordinate, command, or subroutine.

For the sake of debugging, here is the full GAME Code program that this error occurred in. The lines have been properly indented to help you spot scope errors.

0 moveindex 0 1 %0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde - %20a%0A%2F%2F%20point%20or%20so%2C%20because%20the%20double-jump%20is%20not%20considered.%20The%0A%2F%2F%20high%20priestess%20should%20be%20worth%20about%20as%20much%20as%20the%0A%2F%2F%20archbishop%2C%20no%3F%20That%27s%20about%207%2C%20so%2Cgive%20a%20point%20for%20the%0A%2F%2F%20jump%2C%20and%20you%20have%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess%20both%20worth%0A%2F%2F%20about%208...%0A18.%20g5-i6%20%0A18...%20f6-h7%20%2F%2F%20hmmm%2C%20I%20am%20down%20a%20pawn%20here...%0A19.%20h3-h4%20%0A19...%20j8-j7%20%2F%2F%20You%20seem%20to%20have%20developed%20an%20edge%20in%20this%20game.%0A20.%20i6-h5%20%0A20...%20i7-i6%20%0A21.%20h5-i4%20%0A21...%20h9-f7%20%0A22.%20g4-g5%20%0A22...%20f7-i4%20%2F%2FOxH%0A%2F%2F%20surprise%3F%20Happy%20Easter%21%0A23.%20j3-i4%20%0A%2F%2F%20That%20move%20did%20surprise%20me%20but%20it%20looks%20like%20a%20good%20move%0A%2F%2F%20for%20you.%0A23...%20b9-d8%20%2F%2F%20Now%2C%20if%20I%20can%20keep%20you%20from%20any%20good%20moves...%0A24.%20h4-h5 2 end

Game: Falcon Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2006-206-703
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'Falcon Chess Preset for Game Courier' states: 'When castling, the King is allowed to move to any free square between its original position and the Rook's original position. When the King moves only one square, you must enter a double move, such as K f1-g1; R j1-f1 or k f8-e8; r a8-f8.'
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2006-90-840
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

I am just crazy enough to mix Cannons and Bisons in the same variant. And invent positions like this one:

WHITE (to move and win) King(a3), Cannon(g1), Bison (g7)

BLACK King(b1), Cannon(a1)

After 1.CxC KxC the Bison will force mate in 3 more moves: g7-d6-f3-c4. If Black fails to capture the White Cannon, then the three White pieces will eventually force checkmate.

And so the position after 1.CxC KxC also serves as an example of a forced mate in 3 by a single Falcon. In general, a pair of Falcons should be able to mate a lone King. Even a pair of Knights can force a lone King into a corner and stalemate it - but they lack the ability to force checkmate.

David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

1. c2-c4

1... n b8-c6

2. c4-c5

2... n c6-e5

3. c5-c6

3... n e5-g6

4. c6-b7 // PxP

4... n i8-h6

5. b7-a8; Q-a8

I just ran this sample game to verify that Pawns promote to Queens (and presumably other pieces) in this rules enforcing preset. Clicking on the [Rules] button takes me to the 'Falcon Chess' page, where a 'Find promo' command results in several comments of a general nature and one example of a Pawn promoting to a Falcon. I am confused - in a game of 'Falcon Chess 100' between the same two players, George Duke writes:

// Right, in our 80-square FC, promotion only to RNBF,

// because R or F is interesting equal choice, depending on

// position. Here FC100 Queen promotion too if reaching that

// farther zone(Rules).

Game: Cataclysm Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-86-746
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hello Greg, Jeremy. Finally got a chance to look over this game. I really like how your 'double-step' first pawn move is working out in this game. It provides a whole new little element of conflict - very nice. It's refreshing to see a game that likes its pawns. It gives an incentive to do some early pawn maneuvering. I wonder if you could use the doublestep rule throughout a game? At any time, one pawn anywhere may move 2 squares, or 2 pawns may move one square each. That small change should have an interesting effect on the course of a game. Might have to restrict it to big games though. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to try to check in with a few more comments as I can. One thing [of many] I'm interested in is the 'run-time' of the game. For no reason that I can articulate, since I've never been able to make this kind of judgement before, I see the game as lasting about 80 turns, +/- 20 turns. I'd expect to see at least half the decently-played games lasting 60-100 turns. And there's no reason to believe I'm right. But I'll bet a slice of pizza and a beer on it.
Game: Fortress Chess Log: joejoyce-judgmentality-2007-90-158
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hi, Andy. Actually, the pieces you mention are enhanced warmachines, the combination of dabbabah and wazir, not just enhanced dabbabahs. The warmachine may move as either a dabbabah [D] or as a wazir [W]. The enhancements add to its movement abilities. The 1st enhancement is to allow the piece to move as [either or] both D and W, linearly, in either order. This piece I've called the hero. The bent hero is the 2nd enhancement. It moves as [either or] both D and W, in either order, and may change direction between steps. The 3rd is to make the DW a 2-step rider; it moves as either D or W, then as either again, if desired, linearly only. [And 1 step can be D and the other W; they don't have to be the same.] This I called the lightning warmachine. Finally, and 4th, the 2-step DW rider may change directions between steps. This is the flexible knight, so-called because it can make knight and knight-like moves as well as linear ones. These pieces were all named as pieces in different games already posted, and I just used the names from those games. That's a poor idea. Graeme Neatham, in the other game of fort I'm playing, has suggested new names for these pieces, and has given preliminary piece value estimates. I will adopt the names for this variant, and suggest them as generic names for the future. See comments for: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Fortress+Chess&log=joejoyce-cvgameroom-2007-93-286&userid=joejoyce
Andy Maxson Verified as Andy Maxson wrote on
what's the difference between the flexible knight and the hero and all the other enhanced dabbabas?
Game: Moderate Progressive Chess Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2007-29-344
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
White's 7th move is illegal on two counts. 1. He moves a black piece. 2. He checks the King with his second move but continues with other moves, including another check!
Game: Building Chess Log: sibahi-cvgameroom-2007-75-496
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Well, obviously the square wasn't added. And yes, I would like to try that variant. Trying to experiment almost all kinds of variants lately.
Game: Actualized Potential Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2007-60-604
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Here is the first game of Actualized Potential Chess that we have played, this one using the Appearance Blocking Rule.
Game: Shatranj Kamil X Log: david_64-david_64-2007-68-788
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

For those of you who find Shatranj Kamil as exciting as watching grass grow, I have used illegal moves to speed up the process here. First: 6 moves for White and 6 'mirror' moves for Black. Next 6 more moves for White, representing his goals for the opening phase of the game.

Points of Interest: Cannons are attacking Pawns in the initial setup, so precautions need to be taken before the Knights are moved. The Elephants on the h-file now defend the j-file Pawns. On the other side of the board ... Cannon(a10) x Pawn(a3) can be met by Elephant c4-a4, followed by Knight d4-b5. The best move for the trapped Cannon is: sacrifice itself for the Pawn(c3).

And what about that Ferz on f2? Will it serve any purpose in the game besides defending the Pawn on g3? One plan for the endgame is to move a Cannon to f1 and 'fire over the Ferz' to control 8 empty squares on the f-file. The Black King and one Elephant must stop on the f-file whenever they cross the board, which is a major headache.

Game: Shatranj Kamil (64) Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-69-586
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Jeremy, Checking the [Exclude Pieces not in Setup:] box will spare the players (and onlookers) the delays involved in loading those 1200(?) images. Also, I think that some users would prefer to see all the chess pieces in standard (not flipped) orientation. Thanks for your work - my Shatranj Kamil on 100 squares Preset will be available soon.
Game: Czech Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2007-60-022
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Good question. Let's go with this: in the case of a discovered check, there is no Pawn drop because the checking piece has not moved. In a double check, the checking piece that has moved gets the Pawn drop as usual, thereby blocking the second checking piece. That make sense?
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
How about discovered checks and double checks ?
Game: CwDA:FFvsSS Log: joejoyce-sibahi-2006-271-086
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Interesting ending! Even a pair of Woody-Rooks could mate here - sometimes an unblockable shortrange attack is the most useful thing to have. Joe, this website allowed you to post a 'Long&Short of it' thread, but it will not allow replies (because of the illegal '&' symbol).
Game: Square Tiling Rider Shatranj Log: judgmentality-david_64-2007-41-371
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Jeremy: please adjust your 'TenCubed Chess' preset to Sides: White Black and Side: White.

And as long as you are in the preset, I think that the dark squares would look better with Colors: FFFFFF 888888

David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Jeremy: the board looks fine now. I plan on taking at least 36 hours per move, in order to justice to this complex game. I agree with the rule allowing a King to move into check, stay in check, or be exposed to a discovered check during the sequence of moves that make up a single turn. For example, in our last game - Black King captures the White Knightrider [placing the Black King in check again] followed by Black Queen captures White Queen - would have saved the game, if only you had been allowed enough moves to clear a path for the Black Queen.

Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2007-30-129
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Oddly when I try to move my pawn from h2-h4, I get a message saying, 'You may not move your pawn from e2 to e4 :( A bug in there somewhere?
Game: Royal CannonChess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2007-25-790
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
hmm, it's not letting me do the cannon move Queen takes Rook. Isn't this a legal move?

[edit: I read over the rules and apparently you can only make forward cannon moves]

Game: Square Tiling Rider Shatranj Log: judgmentality-david_64-2007-41-371
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Okay, David, that's what we'll do then. I fixed the problem, I hope, or at least I tried to fix it. You'll let me know, I trust, if I haven't.
Game: Modern Courier Chess Log: sibahi-cvgameroom-2006-256-205
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
..
Game: Square Tiling Rider Shatranj Log: judgmentality-david_64-2007-41-371
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Apparently this board is still set at 18 units wide (a - r). This is causing problems with the display, especially when it is Black's turn to move. I propose using these rules:

first turn 4/8 moves, progressive rules for later turns

even a single capture removes the giant ferz

even a single check endangers the giant wazir, and must be countered to avoid mate.

Game: Tiling Rider Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-358-484
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
To see what actually happened in this game, you will have to switch white's third and fourth rows around. Same with first and second rows, with exception of giant wazir.
Game: Tiling Rider Chess Log: judgmentality-david_64-2007-29-031
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Unfortunately, this game will now look nonsensical because I've changed the third and fourth rows of white to match black's. To see the game, just switch white's third and fourth rows around. Same with first and second rows, with exception of giant wazir.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Yes, if you can force my Queen to stop on the 11th and 12th ranks, then there is no checkmate. I took the Knightrider mate you were kind enough to point out to me and adapted it to a Knightrider support of a Queen mate. Note that my Rook (next to my King) has an important role: preventing you from playing a 1-move Knightrider mate on the 'giant square' directly in front of the Rook.

WILD GUESS at piece values: Ferz=1, Wazir=1, Guard=2, Knight=3. Clearly Knightriders and Queens are powerful attacking pieces. I think that Rooks are stronger than Bishops (no surprise there), but a solitary Ferz can race forward at a steady 2 squares per move and provide the forward line of defense we now know to be crucial in this game. Even with elongated moves, a solitary Wazir advances 2+1+1+2+1+1.

How big is the increase in value when a player forms an aggregates? Well, a Queen may be worth as much as 3 Wazirs plus 3 Knights (that can never form a Rook or a Knightrider). Bad luck for a player to get reduced to 3 of one piece.

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Originally, I was going to play m13-l12 and r13-q11 instead of o16-n15. But I got greedy and wanted to form an extra guard rider as well as a nightrider. As it happened, I could form neither. I think this would have saved the game for me though. Right?
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Yes. That is checkmate. Well done, David.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

Turn 10 checkmate, because the White Guards on k13 and k14 can only be captured by giant pieces.

If the the Black King captures the White Queen, then 3 more moves are required to eliminate all Knight checks.

If the the Black King captures the White Knightrider, then 3 more moves are required: h13-h11; g13-h12; [Black Queen captures White Queen].

My hypothetical comments two days ago have nothing to do with this mate. Many thanks for the game!

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, in this game, kings can't be captured; they can only be checked, though they can be checked multiple times. The goal is checkmate, not capture. I don't say that explicitly (perhaps I should?) because I thought it was implied by my reference to the modified moderate progressive rules. Apologies if I may have misled you.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

'Square Tiling Rider Shatranj' is a perfectly good name for the 16x16 game - it is still your variant, after all. Looking forward to a game with you - but I may wait until next week to begin. I am in a kind of opposite situation to you, with MIR CHESS 36 having started out as the simple idea of an 8x8 version of SHAKO, but my refinement MIR CHESS 32 added several original touches.

'My heart says yes, but my mind says no.' Trust your mind - note how easy it is to move an aggregate to a location adjacent to your opponent's royal piece, so any 'jump off the aggregate bus' rule would allow (part of) the royal piece to be captured in the same game turn.

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Back to my rules about aggregates and their units, I think if you were going to go with the idea that units could move after their aggregates have moved, you'd have to say that all four units can't simply form into a brand new aggregate. That would just be too absurdly deadly. Why, if that rule applied, the first person to form a nightrider aggregate could probably simply mop up the board, so you'd have to have a rule, probably a strict one about what would constitute a legitimate new aggregate for a piece to move into. But again, my mind is telling me, don't let those units go after the aggregate has moved. Save that idea for another time and place. Sometimes I even listen to my mind even though 'the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.' Maybe I'll call it Blaise Pascal Chess if it ever fructifies.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, I really love your idea and I will try to create a giant ferz and add it to Alfaerie - Many and create a preset for it. I will send you a challenge. We could call it Paulowich Tiling Rider Shatranj. How does that sound?
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, I was just going to kibbitz the following when I saw you'd just posted your idea. I'll respond to your idea later after I have time to look at it, but meanwhile, here are some thoughts and questions about Tiling Rider Chess: I thought of an interesting rule that I had not specified in my rules for this game. I had already addressed the question, 'Can an aggregate form and then move during the same turn?' Yes, and for some reason, I like that rule, I think because of the golem like quality of pieces coming to life from the dust. But I had not thought of the reverse, 'Can a part of an aggregate move after that aggregate has moved during the same turn?' My heart says yes, but my mind says no. What do you think? lol. If it were yes, then that would beg the further question: 'Can an aggregate form then move, and then part of it move?' Again, my heart says yes, but my mind says no. What do you think? If yes, then theoretically a piece could move into an aggregate, move as an aggregate, then move into a different aggregate, move as an aggregate, and then move out of it, etc. A piece could move a lot if it could jump in and out of aggregates.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

I am tempted to place a nonroyal Giant Ferz on k1, k2, l1, l2 (also k15, k16, l15, l16) and then remove the a1-a16 and b1-b16 columns from the board. This results in a 16x16 variant giving each player 14 copies of each small piece. The (NEW) a1 to p16 diagonal will be shades of blue - which matches the 'black' squares in standard 8x8 chess. The (NEW) locations of the royal giants match that in the 8x8 Shatranj setup.

I am unsure which player actually has an advantage under my proposed 4/8 moves rule. That sounds like fun!

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, the asymmetries were unintentional. lol. I'm going to make it more symmetrical.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David, I think that's the way it ought to be. I will implement that. Thanks for the very useful suggestion! :-)
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

You asked for comments:

Your variant reminds me slightly of highly symmetric 9x9 variants, but in fact this 18x18 setup has different pieces on the the 'i' and 'j' files - and the 13th row matches the 3rd row while the 12th row matches the 4th row. This lack of symmetry seems to be a small advantage for Black. Here is a rules change to help Black some more in future games. TURN ONE: White makes exactly 4 moves and Black makes exactly 8 moves. TURN TWO: regular rules apply, with White moving up to 9 times and Black moving up to once more than White.

Game: Grand Rider Chess Log: brainburner-judgmentality-2007-29-748
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
I suppose Black moved a Berolina Pawn on move 5. Larry, you need to bring Black's last LEGAL MOVE up in the display line and press the 'Go' button (where the 'View' button is when you are looking at someone else's game). Next, retype your previous move in the usual line and add a note telling your opponent why his move was illegal.
Game: Royal Knight Relay Chess Log: adrian-yamorezu-2007-29-936
Peter Aronson Verified as Peter Aronson wrote on
Actually, this game has been invented before and is even on this site, but it is also rather well hidden here (we never have figured out how to properly index the modest variant pages). There is also a ZRF file for it.
Game: Grand Rider Chess Log: brainburner-judgmentality-2007-29-748
Larry Wheeler Verified as Larry Wheeler wrote on
My first kibbitz! Illegal move. How do you back up?
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2006-294-651
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
I plan to delete this game by the end of the month.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Apparently the game settings did not allow players to 'save up' unused time, which eventually resulted in a time forfeit. I don't know any way to restart this game.
Game: 4-Way Double Capablanca Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-349-505
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Since Greg has gone out of town for a week and a half, we mightn't be able to continue for a while though the last time he did this, he did end up having pretty good computer access, he has indicated he might not wish to use it this time even if he should have it. Marco, white is Stephen Stockman. Red is Joe Joyce. Light blue is me. Dark blue is Greg Strong. Dark blue and light blue are playing against red and white. Since PBM, as far as I know, doesn't allow more than two players to enter their moves, Greg is sending his moves to me to enter and Joe is sending his moves to Stephen to enter.
Marco Silva Verified as Marco Silva wrote on
Wait, whose playing what color?
Game: Connected Chess Log: judgmentality-adrian-2006-358-451
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
whopps i castled into chcek. need do over. lol.
Game: Grand Shatranj Log: joejoyce-cvgameroom-2006-264-103
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Something occured to me while I was trying to move pieces around on the Hyperchess board. If we follow all rules concerning movements except the King's hold rule, and we flip the little squares and the big squares: the resulting game would be exactly the same (except for the interesting starting array.) If we are to apply the King's hold, it will be in reverce: if both kings are on the same little square the king there first can't get out of it unless to another big square. The pawn protection rule will work beautifully as well. Following the notion of the little square and big square being two sides of a coin, I believe the King's hold should apply to both of them; it produces interesting tactics : one of the kings can try to hold the other from the very beginning of the game without (at least apparently) getting too close to the enemy. This can work in W&J as well, but I am not sure how to represent the walkers' moves in the reversed board. HyperCazyHouse is an interesting varint, pawn can't be dropped if the sum of the first and third digit is 1 or 8. Or Atomic HyperChess, where pieces explode when captured removing every piece (but not pawns) on the adjacent squares, both big and little. HyperShatranj (which you're already playing in the game courier) looks good. (sorry for not waiting till the move, I wanted to write this before I forget it.)
Game: Brotherhood Extinction Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-301-772
Game: 2g Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-283-925
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
oops, i realize there is a mistake at move 20... when black's d5 Pawn mysteriously disappears.
Game: Brotherhood Extinction Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-275-838
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
thanks for the game, i think it was about even until you captured my Knight. Anyway, I think I like this combined variant better than either extinction or brotherhood chess on their own. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
Game: 2g Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-283-925
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
i should also point out that a pawn reaching the last rank promotes on the first part of the move, before moving back one space.
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2006-279-912
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
Attention Peter, you still have to make the first move in this game, regards, steve
Game: CwDA:FFvsSS Log: joejoyce-sibahi-2006-271-086
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hey, Greg. The king, knights and pawns are all standard FIDE-style pieces, with the king able to castle with the D+W. The 3 non-standard piece-types, those with center-of-piece symbols, are linear pieces that move as either or both of their components. They may all slide 1 and/or jump 2 squares [or jump 2 then slide 1]. Well, that's not strictly accurate. The D+W moves orthogonally 1, 2, or 3 squares. The A+F moves diagonally 1, 2 or 3. The 'queen' [extended jumping general] moves as either of the other two pieces, but cannot move partly as one and partly as the other. So it moves 1, 2, or 3 squares either orthogonally or diagonally. None of the pieces may change directions. At some point I hope to have the center symbols enclosed in a square to differentiate these pieces from Great Shatranj pieces [which only move 1 or 2] and Lemurian Shatranj pieces, which may move up to 3, but which can change directions during the move. [The first 2 pieces, D+W and A+F, are also found in Chieftain Chess.] Abdul wanted to try some of the shatranj leapers in a CWDA setting, so we've been experimenting.
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Hmmm... so, how do the black pieces move?
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2006-277-709
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Mr. Stockman, I realized I made a mistake when setting up this game. I meant for the game to be one where you have up to a week to make a move, but instead I accidently made a blitz game: A week for all moves.

This was not my intention. I would like to play you at schoolbook, but I would rather play at a much slower pace. A week for the entire game is far too fast for anyone to make the best move possible.

Is is OK if I delete this game and start another Schoolbook game with you before we play Deluxe Chess?

OK, since I normally only play slow games and you normally play fast games, I don't think I'll be able to play Deluxe Chess with you. :(

- Sam

Game: One Way Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-272-838
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
in answer to your question about the rules, yes, a piece can move across the board as if it was circular, so my bishop, for example, at h4 could reach a5 (via e1).
Game: Dynamo Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-272-763
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Hi, does anybody know whether white's last move was in accordance with the rules of dynamo chess? I'd appreciate your help with this matter.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
what seems odd to me is that a piece can push/pull another piece without moving itself...
Game: CwDA : FF v SS Log: sibahi-joejoyce-2006-268-978
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
You're right, Abdul; I missed that move. Apparently the only thing white can do in this game is play N -> f3 as the first move, and use the other knight to block the oliphant should it check the king from b4. I do think you need to back down the power of the shooters for an 8x8. Or keep them the same but go to 10x10 facing a Grand Chess setup, maybe. The FIDE pieces have such a tough time in this game that I think it might be a good idea to make the pawns for the shooters strictly 1-step shatranj pawns to give the FIDEs a chance if we stick with this setup.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
The Shooters are obviously too powerful in the opening. You can play : 1... Zh4+ and nothing can stop 2.. Zxe4 mate. I am thinking of a Wazir-Dabbabah-(3,0)leaper for the rooks (WDH in the funny notation), and a digonal counterpart for the bishops (FAG in the funny notation), and the Queen is again a combination of the two.
Game: Janus Chess Log: dankelly-cvgameroom-2006-264-954
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
This game should be deleted from the logs: Dan only lost because he has been having technical problems with figuring out how to use the Game Courier interface.

- Sam

Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2006-255-859
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
[deleted]
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: olbog-penswift-2006-235-426
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
interesting game, bogot has my number in the game i'm playing him, but i think u got something going here tho gary
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2006-263-933
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
I have written an interesting page on the opening.
Game: Chieftain Chess Log: penswift-mjjoyce3-2006-212-103
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
ha ha, i read your last comment joe, it is really a joke question, asking 2 chess players in mid-battle, 'so, who's winning' :)
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
so, who's winning :)
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-cvgameroom-2006-163-422
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I think White's next move would have been to bring the Coordinator up from h1 to h5, followed by g2-h2. What White has worried about mostly, lately, is a meandering of Black's King over to the Leaper at h7.
Game: Pao Vao Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-227-248
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Thanks. Back when I made the sacrifice I wasn't entirely sure it would pay off... Good game.
Game: Ca Log: mschmahl-cvgameroom-2006-228-754
Michael Schmahl Verified as Michael Schmahl wrote on
Sorry, I didn't notice your question from a few moves back. No, there is no castling in this game. I hope you enjoy your first try at this game! It is actually rather elegant in its own right, but quite a bit unlike orthodox Chess.
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
Hi, this is my first try on this game :)
Game: Shako Log: rodriguez-carlos-2006-227-401
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
this preset is not letting me castle. can someone please see if there's a bug, or advise me what to type in.
Game: Dimension X Log: jejujeju-gdimension-2006-222-153
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Gee Bee and I are having trouble getting this game to the position prior to my illegal move. With his agreement, I am deleting the game and will reinvite him to start again.
Game: Berolina Chess Log: carlos-rodriguez-2006-219-338
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
cheers.
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Sorry, Carlos, it should be working now. (Actually, it was letting you promote to a White piece.)
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
it won't let me promote to a queen (or a bishop). i'm allowed to promote, right? could you have a look to see if there's a bug, fergus?
Game: Dimension X Log: jejujeju-gdimension-2006-222-153
je ju Verified as je ju wrote on
Thank you. First time and a bit confused. Will read rules more carefully. Thanks again. Jeju
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
That Spider move of black's is not legal. Spiders move only 1 space at a time. Crabs also move one space. Snakes move 2 spaces. Also, if you move from DimensionX to Fide you must move to the same relative square, e.g., E4-e4; F5-f5; etc. and visa-versa.
Game: Crazyhouse Log: carlos-jejujeju-2006-214-320
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
fergus, this game log has somehow recorded the wrong winner.
Game: Double Doppelganger Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-195-174
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Another possible tactic I did not think of before is trying to capture two different defended pieces (one on each board) with two twins on the same turn, thereby winning a piece (or pair of pieces) in the exchange.
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: chrisj787-acternusnox-2006-215-302
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
your move should have been entered as d2-d3. either player can fix this on your next move by adding ;P d2- to your move
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
if u cant get the game to start, enter your userid and password at the top of the game logs page, then click 'submit', click on the link with your name on it and press continue then enter your move
Game: Schoolbook Chess Log: sam_trenholme-cvgameroom-2006-203-220
Sam Trenholme Verified as Sam Trenholme wrote on
Castling comes from Fergus Duniho's Grotesque Chess: The king may castle two or three squares towards the rook on the kingside, and two, three, or four squares towards the rook on the queenside. The rook leaps over the king to land besides the king. The king can not castle out of, through, or in to check. Both the king and rook that the king castles with must not have previously moved.
Game: Pawnless Ecumenical Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2006-213-288
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i don't really want to bring attention to this board, but does someone want to confirm this is checkmate?
Game: Shatranji Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-174-767
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Yep, I just didn't foresee that drop move, well-played
Game: Dr. Who Chess Log: judgmentality-calvin-2006-210-616
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
woooooah look at that, Dr.Who is out of the tardis!!
Game: House of Ten Mirrors Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-207-424
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
well that is not very fair
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
Black is using a Bishop... it should be a Dragon Horse... Can move like King or Bishop.
Game: Knight Pawns Chess Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-209-253
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
The Knight-Pawn has the curious property of moving backwards to the first row (when moving like a Knight) so that it can become subject to en passant capture, over and over again. When moving like a pawn, it can leap forward to the center of the board. No matter how many times the Knight-Pawn retreats to the 1st rank (by making Knight moves), it can leap forward to the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rank by making a multi-square move forward.
Game: Rococo Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2005-279-312
Todor Tchervenkov Verified as Todor Tchervenkov wrote on
Ups! What I just told you is not true! Because you could capture my Swapper if it goes to e1. Excuse me!
Game: Double Doppelganger Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-195-174
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I was thinking about the move order. And this alternative: Player 1 moves white, the Player 2 moves BLACK on the SAME board, then white on the second board, then Player 1 moves black on the second board and white on the first. Wouldn't this be more logical than the move order I've implemented here?
Game: Grand Warp Point Chess Log: dogod-cvgameroom-2006-189-765
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
The point of a Warp point 'not being capturable' is to allow it to penetrate the opponent's lines... acting sort of as a dangerous Star Gate. Logical play would be to have one forward Warp point (deep into enemy lines) and one back Warp Point. So I think Warp Points should not be captureable. However- If a Medusa piece (or 2?) were added to each side, then a player could use that to turn-off the Warp Point function [while the Medusa]was adjacent to any enemy warp point. The Medusa would (like the one in Mini POM) could freeze and capture pieces, but in regard to Warp Points, could only turn them off.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-calvin-2006-187-608
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
Note that if a K + Q were against a lone King, that lone King could not Time Travel as he is required to have a friendly piece or pawn... so in these cases a King could not just venture off to escape mate. In general: (1) When your last piece or pawn is taken, and you have only a King Time Traveling then he will be Lost In Time (a game loss). (2) If you have a piece(s) and or pawn(s) but have no legal moves, then even if you have a Time Traveling King the game is drawn. In summary - If you have no material and a Time Traveling King - you can lose due to a Loss in Time condition. If you have material, but no legal moves (such as a blocked pawn) you will have a draw.
Game: Ibu Ibu Alice Alice Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2006-187-708
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
On black's move 5 is white in check, or not so since Cd5 is occupied? Funny for me to ask as the inventor of this variant, but pieces are supposed to migrate from boards A - B - C and back to A again using Alice Chess rules. So if you were just to focus on boards B and C, and thought of it as an Alice Chess game, is Black in check? We had both thought so, but my opponent now thinks otherwise. Why? Because the occupation of Cd5 means that the bishop couldn't capture the king on his next move and checkmate implies that possibility (of being able to capture your opponent's king on your next move).
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-calvin-2006-187-608
Calvin Pomerantz Verified as Calvin Pomerantz wrote on
what happens when I have no legal moves?
Game: Mastodon Chess Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-173-593
M Winther Verified as M Winther wrote on
I have followed your game, but now you have lost me. I hope you don't think that the Mastodon can move like a knight. Best regards, Mats.
Game: Limbo Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2006-187-706
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
It's an elegant idea. I like it.
Dan Troyka Verified as Dan Troyka wrote on
Well, no, you can't actually capture an opponent King, only checkmate. But the idea is that check only occurs when in fact the King could be captured on the next turn. Since an enemy King on top of a friendly King could not be captured, the enemy King in that position cannot be in check.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
That carries the implication that it is possible for a King to be captured in heaven but the rules specify that wins take place when a king is checkmated in either heaven or hell. Can kings in heaven be captured and sent to hell? (If so, that would complicate Limbo Chess tremendously, hehe.)
Dan Troyka Verified as Dan Troyka wrote on
The rule about the King on King is based on prevention of suicide. If your opponent's King in Heaven is directly on top of your King in Hell, a capture of the opponent King would simultaneously capture your own King, which is verboten. So it's treated as not being a check, although if the friendly King in Hell moves to a different square a check is uncovered.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-calvin-2006-187-608
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I was in dread as the moment drew nigh. I think, in retrospect, sending my king away on the first move like that was reckless and inadvisable. I feel lucky to have been able to squeak through that mess.
Game: Limbo Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2006-187-706
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on

Is the middle board limbo?

*************Yes.

If a piece is captured on the middle board, I understand that it goes into reserve. How is that represented graphically?

*************It's represented as the piece that you've captured except in your own color. Put it on any gray space behind your side. I suggest putting it behind heaven (but if space runs out there, behind one of the other gray spaces.) This will become clear in the course of play, I expect. It's easier to show than describe what happens to dropped pieces.

When it's re-inserted, does it go to the far right board (i.e., is that heaven)?

*************The blue board is heaven. Yes, and re-insertion of a piece (which can only be done in heaven) counts as a move.

And what happens when a piece is captured there, or on the first board (which I'm guessing is hell)?

*************Pieces in hell disappear, as in your Heaven and Hell Chess.

*************Well, as you say, it's a work in progress and there may be some fine points that still need to be worked out. I notice in your Heaven & Hell there is a rule, 'A King that is directly above an opponent King can never be in check.' Why? Can you explain that rule to me?

Game: Ibu Ibu Alice Alice Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2006-187-708
Dan Troyka Verified as Dan Troyka wrote on
Oops, meant to let you go first. How does the third board fit in? I did not see a game description for Ibu Ibu Alice Alice chess. I think I can figure out the two board Alice variant but for the three board I better get some direction first. Do the pieces rotate from board one to two, then two to three, then three to one, and if so must all three corresponding squares on the boards be vacant, or just the two (moving & destination) at issue?
Game: Limbo Chess Log: judgmentality-dtroyka-2006-187-706
Dan Troyka Verified as Dan Troyka wrote on
Okay, here we go. I need a better understanding of the game mechanics, understanding that this is a work in progress. Is the middle board limbo? If a piece is captured on the middle board, I understand that it goes into reserve. How is that represented graphically? When it's re-inserted, does it go to the far right board (i.e., is that heaven)? And what happens when a piece is captured there, or on the first board (which I'm guessing is hell)? Sorry for all the questions, but I do like the basic limbo idea and am trying to get a better sense of how captures operate.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-calvin-2006-187-608
Calvin Pomerantz Verified as Calvin Pomerantz wrote on
Remember the piece from the past
Game: Blackjack Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-157-321
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
for reference: Queen 9 pts Rook 5 Knight 3 Bishop 3 Pawn 1 King 0
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-judgmentality-2006-46-225
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Jeremy, thanks for making a preset for TenCubed Chess! Only actual play will determine if I have successfully merged two variants into one enjoyable game.

As for the question Joe asked at the end of this game, I suspect that the General is not strong enough to beat a Knight in the endgame. This seems reasonable, as the endgame K+R versus K+N is usually a draw. In fact, I cannot find a winning strategy for King and Dragon Horse versus King and Knight. I set up Zillions to play this endgame against itself on a slow setting, with no progress being made after 60 moves. That is somewhat shocking, as I consider the Dragon Horse to be worth a pair of Knights.

Game: Elk Chess Log: judgmentality-mwi9-2006-165-658
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Mats did a great job programming this preset. Automatically, the Elk converts to its dark square and light square components!
Game: Knight Pawns Chess Log: judgmentality-mmontcha-2006-141-647
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Hi, Matthew. I've changed to a darker tone. Let me know if you like it okay.
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
The colors are being displayed in such a way that the chessboard is very hard to see. The squares ought to alternate between two colors, not three. Is there any way you can fix the colors? I think that people interested in learning how to play Knight-pawn Chess will be turned off if they are presented with a chessboard whose colors alternate between white and pale-white. Similarly, a chessboard whose colors alternate between 'light pink' and 'cream-white' isn't much better. (Or maybe it's just my PC, and I shouldn't expect reliable graphics when I am trying to use Windows to get here.)
Game: Pretentious Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-128-274
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Namik, you should not have changed your Rook into a Knight, but I will ignore this because I am taking it.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: sibahi-cvgameroom-2006-158-715
Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Verified as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on
I have no Idea how to make a Random Army, it alwayd starts with the FIDEs. So, please anyone don't accept the invitation.
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2006-111-906
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
Jon, u have to make the first move cuz u picked the white armies, email me at [email protected] if u are having a problem
Game: 4-WAY CHESS Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2006-149-983
Stephen Stockman Verified as Stephen Stockman wrote on
Isleno, you have to make the first move cuz u picked white armies. email me at [email protected] if your having a problem
Game: Moderate Progressive Chess Log: stevestockman-cvgameroom-2006-146-019
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
Game: Zip Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-149-943
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Namik- The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the following: 'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square passed.'
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Namik- The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the following: 'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square passed.'
Game: Pillars of Medusa with Gifford Graphics Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-48-189
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I think I'll try mini-pillars instead...
Game: Rotation Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-138-250
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
so black should have a theoretical advantage then, correct? Not sure how you could re-work the rules to eliminate that problem.
Game: Circular Chess Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2006-97-777
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
17...c1-f4 with the double check, I think, would have been mate for me! No?
Game: Cleopatra Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-136-988
James Spratt Verified as James Spratt wrote on
Hi, Jeremy, Hi, Namik: Hey, cute game, cute board & icons. You could use some of my little martian figures from the Jetan Piece Graphics. Wouldn't they look a little more Egyptian? Glad you like my little guys.
Game: Pillars of Medusa with Gifford Graphics Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-48-189
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
The Medusas can do more than freeze adjacnet pieces. From the rules: ' The Medusa, in addition to capturing pieces, will 'turn adjacent-square pieces to stone.' '
Game: Rotation Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-138-250
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I just realized something weird about this game. On the 10th turn the second player can leave a black piece en prise to be taken when he moves next as white, on the 20th turn the first player can do the same thing, and so on. This seems to leave the black army at an extreme disadvantage, though I'm not sure where it leaves the players...probably very confused.
Game: Cannons of Chesstonia Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-139-673
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
In some games (like maybe Othello), it seems that conquest of the corners is the thing to try to achieve, don't you think? That's sort of opposite. Also, speaking of 'opposites' - I wonder how the center is affected in toroidal variants, such as my toric cat pack - 'flying kittens' series - where opposite edges as well as opposite squares are tied together. My latest invention along these lines is called 'master squares' and involves a series of linkages between not just opposite corners, but each opposite set of four - six squares (depending on whether the square is in the corner or the middle).
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
Jeremy, you are correct about 'outflanking' in Go, and that the 'center' concept is not a real issue. In Go there are often many independent skirmishes. Lines 'live' and 'die.' Surround and conquer is the method of battle... the lack of individual piece movement is what keeps Go out of the CV category, in my opinion, of course.
Game: 2 Space Generator Battle Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-141-597
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Here is another approach to the same idea: In this version, the space generators (symbolized by Squares) can not capture but can be captured. However, the space remover (symbolized by the circle) can not be captured nor can it capture (it can however be temporarily trapped by being surrounded by opposing pieces since it can only move to an empty space that exists). Sound like fun? Then playtest it with me! :-)
Game: 1 Space Generator Battle Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-141-583
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Who wants to try out this newish idea inspired by variants like Choiss and voidrider? The squares are space generators. The circles are space removers. You can either move a piece or move a generator. The remover removes which ever square it just visited. I'm interested in playtesting this game with someone clever who might be able to suggest ways of making it more playable while we try it out together. In this version, space generators and space removers are not able to capture or be captured. They move like guards (non-royal kings). The space remover removes what ever square it just left, but can only move to squares that exist.
Game: Cannons of Chesstonia Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-139-673
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Gary, this may possibly be one of the central differences between chess and Go. In chess variant, the conflict tends to be defined as revolving around centers. Not so, I think, in Go, which relies on outflanking. (Or am I wrong?)
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
I think the same can safely be said for Alice Chess and Double-Bug House. But for many large war games (and some very large board games) I think the game board can be divided into several battlezones, each of which have their own center-of action. These 'virtual centers' can shift and can even dissapear. But this scenario, I believe, is more applicable to (or at least more typical of) Avalon Hill type war simulation games.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
'Some might look at [Seenschach] as having two centers.' Interesting observation, Gary! :-)
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
There is a variant called Seenschach, where there is a huge gaping hole in the center. Seenschach was created by the great chess variants scholar and inventor Joerg Knappen, and some very powerful and unusual pieces like crooked bishops and reflecting bishops and pandas find ways to navigate around the corners. There is also a variant called Black Hole Chess where just the very center square is cut out.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
In his essay on Doublewide Chess, Betza asks the question (somewhat facetious?) where is 'the' center point in FIDE chess? His answer is that it varies depending on the game.
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
For USCF chess e4, d4, e5, d5 are considered to be (and are mathematically) the center squares. They can be controlled from a distance of course... or indirectly via some threat. I believe you are aware of this, but I make the comment for the benefit of a new player who may happen by.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Neither here nor there this is but I was just, on the other hand, reading about Betza's observations of 'Doublewide Chess' one of the subheadings being, 'Where's the Center?'
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Ahem.
Gary Gifford Verified as Gary Gifford wrote on
Control of center is indeed important. But some unorthodox players, such as Michael Basman will abandon the center - or rather delay its occupation by starting out on one or both sides and then later pinching the center. In Cannons of Chesstonia players can move a Cannon back and forth and simply avoid movement on the 8x8 portion board... thus avoiding central occupation as well as occupation of either flank. I think that this lack of development could proove itself harmful, should the opponent of such a plan avoid serious error.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
In my remark about my first move, I say, 'control' is key in most variants. Well, I meant 'control of center' (in most variants with which I'm familiar, not just FIDE).
Game: Hostage Chess Log: michaeljay-cvgameroom-2006-93-166
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
I completely missent the move 22... Can you rewind the game 1 move? 33 seconds ago, ...
Game: Korean Chess Log: lazyking-cvgameroom-2006-71-902
jung-bin song Verified as jung-bin song wrote on
Mr.Michael Madsen I was glad to see you in last Korean chess game. Thank you so enjoy time with you. Your 3move b3-g3 was not bad move. This move is one of the first-attacking plan in Janggi offense. But,4move g3-g7 was so bad.And so you lost this *PO* was painful.... If you played another move,this game would go another way,may be. Thank you. Jung-Bin Song From Tokyo.
Game: The Central Squares for 8 x 8 Boards Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-97-524
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I think I made a correct 13th move (as Black). I'd appreciate a second eye though, if someone wants to have a gander at the situation.
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-119-857
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Matthew, could you comment a little on the suicide rule? When did it become part of the game? It's not a rule I remember from the mid-late 60's, when I originally learned to play. In fact, I played our games without realizing it could be done (as I merely refreshed myself on the moves and did not read the full rules text). The special leaper rule seems familiar, too: stopping after a capture. Were these rules a feature of the first or second version, or maybe a popular variant back when it first came out? The name I knew was Ultima; I never heard of Baroque until recently.
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I think that somewhat earlier White could have presented Black with considerable difficulty with moves like h2-h3 (bringing the Leaper over from g1 to h2) or b2-b6, followed by a general advance of the Immobilizer.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: pallab-david_64-2006-125-905
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I'll be awaiting you, David!
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Sad to say, I do not have the free time to start any new games here. I mostly play on Game Courier from December to March, each year.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: judgmentality-pallabbasu-2006-126-678
pallab basu Verified as pallab basu wrote on
Great play !!
Game: Omega Chess Log: judgmentality-res1m0z0-2006-122-722
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
This preset should register 'Checkmate' I believe, but doesn't, as you can see from the above position where I was checkmated.
Game: Templar Chess Log: adrian-fergus-2006-86-209
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
forgot to note RxR+ for move 34...
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
oops, I meant check not ++ for move 29
Game: Centaur Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-80-105
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Thanks for playing, Namik. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
Game: Templar Chess Log: adrian-fergus-2006-86-209
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I hope you enjoy closed positions Fergus! I noticed the other Templar game being played is also closed. In my testing with Zillions, by the way, open positions were much more common, but I guess that's mostly due to Zillions' agressive playing style.

One of my ideas for Templar chess is allowing the Templar to promote to a piece that moves as a Bishop plus Dabbaba-rider. This should provide incentive both to keep Templars in the game and use them more offensively. Though I have yet to test the idea.

Game: Chinese Chess Log: michaeljay-ramalam-2006-48-117
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Typing the word 'drawn' for your move should work.
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
We have agreed to a draw, and so how do we end the game?
Game: Pretentious Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-63-147
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I realized earlier when you made a Knight-move with your King that there is no extra piece to represent the Royal Knight. We'll just have to remember.
Game: RuBeN Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-92-805
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Right, David. That's clearly what he meant. Thank you.
Game: Bedlam Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-58-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Oh, right. Sorry. I misread your first comment to say legal. Sorry.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
White's 12th move is illegal. Fission cannot be used for capturing.
Game: RuBeN Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-92-805
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'Suppose that White's Bishops and Knights are exchanged...'

It appears that Betza intended a sort of Chess With Different Armies variant, with the Black pieces on their usual squares.

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Is it just me or is the notation for the sample variation Betza gives for his RBN chess incorrectly written? If so, maybe someone has the time to tell me how Black's knights really move in his sample opening.
Game: Bedlam Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-58-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
You see, Fergus, the problem I have been having is that White captured a piece with his twelfth move and, instead of demoting, appeared to use fission. Am I overlooking something?
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Demotion is not fission. When a piece demotes, it does not leave anything behind. Remember, fission happens only when moving to an empty space, and demotion happens only when capturing a piece.
Game: Chess with Terrain Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2006-97-776
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'There are 21 possibilities to put 5 pieces in seven spaces...'

[2004-10-07] comment by Roberto Lavieri on the 'Chess w/ Terrain' thread, which I bumped today. I recall reading that one victory condition was: occupy five of the seven yellow squares with your pieces.

Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
It's a shame that the link to the rules no longer work. What do the yellow squares signify?
Game: Bedlam Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-58-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
What you say in the rules, if I read them as they were actually written, is that a compound non-royal piece demotes when it captures, but you don't appear to mention that it leaves its other half behind. Thus my confusion.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I assume you mean the original move 12 by White. Yes, that move was illegal. It looks like you found the relevant rules on your own.
Game: Knight Pawn Toroidal Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-92-559
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Actually, Matthew, the center 4 x 8 squares are intended to be toroidal. That's why they are a different color. So pieces on the center 4 x 8 squares have the option of using the edges as toroidal edges or as just part of the regular board, affording them a much greater range than usual... Please see as cf. Ralph Betza's description of Outrigger Toroid Chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/outrig.html
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I guess this is played on a cylindrical board, and not a toroidal board, or else the Kings would be in check from each other.
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: david_64-zcherryz-2006-47-058
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
After 27... Cxc4, Black temporarily leads by an Elephant to a Pawn. I was mostly concerned about White playing 28.Exd5 Exd5 29.Rxd5+ Kc7 30.Gd4, and now Black leads by an Elephant to two Pawns - but could still lose his Cannon on c4.
Game: Chess-B Log: judgmentality-mwi9-2006-93-732
Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther wrote on
I can't move because it says that I am white!! I don't know what to do about it.
Game: Bedlam Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-58-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Help? Anyone?
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: david_64-zcherryz-2006-47-058
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
27.Nb1 Gxc2 28.Bxd5 looks interesting. I now realize that the White Rook should not be taken: 28... Gxd1 29.Cxd1 check!
Game: Bedlam Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-58-643
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
The rules to this game are somewhat complicated. I want to know whether the last move played was done according to the rules: Can a compound piece capture that way? The rules seem to suggest that if the knight is to capture, it should demote and not leave the bishop behind. Or was it played correctly after all?
Game: One Way Chess Log: adrian-richsalaway-2006-87-020
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I tested the game and found that it was too hard to develop pieces because of the ease in trapping them, hence the weakened Pawns.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Why is there no pawn double step or e.p. according to the rules?
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Ah, thanks! Yes, I had forgotten that the Queen is the royal piece.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-69-490
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Fergus, this preset announced Check! instead of Checkmate!
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Jeremy, the game ended with double check and mate to the Black Queen, with the White Dragon assisting.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I would have thought the black king could have played k-h9, but I guess the lesson here for me is that kings can't stand in the way of leos even if what the leo is threatening is a square where it doesn't have the power to capture.
Game: Quintessential Quadrupeds Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-81-834
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Not checkmate, no, but pretty upsetting. You have two ways of intercepting the check, g1-h4, via i2, or f1-h4, through the zebra movement available to the 'Queezy Quince' on f1 (compound rider piece, can move like quebra or quamel or quintessence).
Game: English Progressive Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-80-322
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
I don't know if you have been reading my comments, Namik, but you are not playing this game correctly. I suggest you look at the rules page for this game, and let me know if you understand how to play before we continue. Otherwise, I will delete the game log. Thanks.
Game: Glinski's Hexagonal Chess Log: tord-cvgameroom-2006-81-489
Tord Romstad Verified as Tord Romstad wrote on
Hi Jeremy, thanks for accepting the challenge! I hope we'll have a fun game. Good luck!
Game: Half Portuguese and Very Scottish Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-78-043
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
Correction: When I referred to Scottish Chess in my comments I meant Very Scottish Chess.
Game: Chess on a Larger Board with not so few Pieces Dropped Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-36-569
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Yes, both Kings had moved, none had hit the eighth row and you were putting the enemy King into check, so your move was legal. And that's checkmate.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
Does anyone care to comment as to whether I deployed the assassin correctly and whether it checkmates the king?
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: pallab-cvgameroom-2006-64-786
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Good game. I have to observe more games, but I have ever been tempted to consider Nutty Knights army better than the Remarkable Rookies. The power of this army can
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-simon.langley-evans-2006-29-563
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Interesting end... More comments after finishing, there is still game to play.
Game: Chinese Chess Log: judgmentality-shumby-2006-48-115
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
What happened in this game? Did White resign or is the game still going on?
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: pallab-cvgameroom-2006-64-786
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Every spring I retire from internet chess and return to my local chess club. So what have I learned this time around? STRATEGY: the Half-Duck is worth 50% more than the Short Rook, making it too valuable to risk trading. I should have used my Short Rooks aggressively and perhaps traded them for the Charging Knights.

TACTICS: If Black plays 29...CH b2-b1(check) 30.CR d2-e1 the Chancellor will have to run away, losing a tempo. Black saw the diagonal move 30 at the last moment, because he had been thinking of the CR as a ordinary Rook. What should Black have played earlier? After 28...WR f7-f6 29.CO f4-d3 the Chancellor will still have to run away. After 28...HD e7-f6 29.CO f4-g6 Black has saved his Half-Duck from capture, but White seems to have a mating attack similar to the one that ended this game. One lesson from this game: never assume that your opponent must reply to a capture with a recapture.

Game: Unicorn Great Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-36-635
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
My congratulations to the winner. Observation: even if the White Unicorn was replaced by a Fibnif (from Ralph Betza's Nutty Knights), Black would still be checkmated.
Game: Switching Chess Log: carlos-joejoyce-2005-339-735
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
hehe. i wondered if your moves were strategically timed, taking into account international datelines etc. i lost three games on time a week ago but managed to keep this one alive. i was going to offer a draw if it wouldn't make any difference to where i would end up in the final table, but it wasn't updated and i didn't have time to check it myself. good game anyway.
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-58-982
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
You have observed quite rightly how porous a pawn structure is, or becomes, if the pinchers are placed a knight's move away from each other. But it has been my observation that pinchers tend to be moved half as often as the noble pieces are, and maybe even less than that. Since Noble pieces can move in twice as many directions, it pays to concentrate on tactical maneuvers on their part, and then supplement them with slower moving maneuvers on the part of pinchers, after a tactical sequence runs into a brick wall. In this game, pawns don't connect together the way they do in Chess. Instead, it makes more sense to assume they aren't going to move at all, and just look for inroads to go by. I think there are pawn structures in Baroque, it's just that they are wide open to diagonal movements made by the Noble pieces.
Game: Switching Chess Log: rlavieri2003-fergus-2005-339-737
Tony Quintanilla Verified as Tony Quintanilla wrote on
Nice game! In retrospect, Roberto's move 39, capturing the g Pawn was critical. Also, the Rook sacrifice in move 43 was neat and effective in reducing material. At move 49, as Roberto pointed out, there were interesting chances for both. Fergus' c and d passed Pawns, however, were harder to promote with the White King blocking. Nicely played by both!
Game: Eurasian Chess Log: fergus-david_64-2006-60-649
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
On move 20 White played Cannon x Queen, Black retaliated with Vao x Rook, and things got complicated. I think the game was definitely lost when Black failed to play 36... Pawn e6-e5, after which his Knight(c8) is defended by his Bishop(h3), which in turn is defended by his Cannon(h10). At the very least, White's Queen would have a more difficult time breaking through the Black defenders in this position. Thank you for a most interesting game.
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: fergus-lazyking-2005-205-108
pallab basu Verified as pallab basu wrote on
A very interesting game, shows the matching power of two armies. 16 ... d4-d3 looses a pawn??. Probably some more defensive move was better. Although the idea to exchange the rook was a nice idea for white. It seems that in the endgame Fide rook is stronger than the charging rook. Black could have kept his rook. Anyway, a great game !!
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-46-987
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Very complex game. In move 9, Matthew made a risky move which allowed him and advantage of Pincers, but White sacrificed two more Pincers in a threat for capturing Black Immobilizer. After some tactics, the balance was: Black Immobilizer lost, but with the compensation of four Pincers for the piece and a more active position. I improved slowly, and step by step the position, and finally Matt position was deteriorating, being clear a White victory. White Immobilizer have not had the possibility of strong action, but its passive danger was decisive. Morality: Immobilizer is extremely strong in this game and Pincers are not too valious to the end, I believe that Immobilizer value is much more than four Pincers, perhaps its value is that of 6 or 7 Pincer Pawns!.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2006-60-221
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I wouldn't say that I marched my King to safety. Toward the end of the game, I was two moves away from being checkmated, and when I checkmated David's King, I was only one move away from being checkmated myself. What saved me from that was being able to checkmate first. The two moves were to advance his Champion toward my King and to advance his h Pawn toward my King. This would have left only two spaces between his Champion and my King, leaving me nowhere to go. On move 11, he could have moved Ch6. Instead, he moved Wh6, apparently to avoid capture by my Wizard. With Ch6, he would have been threatening mate with Ph4. I could have played 12. NxP(g5)+ ... LxN 13. W(f1)xL (attacking Champion) ... Cg6 (ending mating threat) With the move he did make, he was still threating mate in two by moving the Wizard away, leaving a wormhole at h6, then advancing the Pawn, leaving a wormhole at h5, which would put the Champion only two spaces away from my King. I had to check with whatever I could to avoid this. Since the Wizard was guarding e5, I began with NxP+. He followed with WxN. I then moved Ce5+ in hopes of CxC, PxC. But instead of taking the bait, he moved his King, and I then noticed a mate-in-one and won.
Game: Cavalier Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-58-663
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
As with most of Game Courier's display problems, this was a server-side problem, not a client-side one. Since the preset for Cavalier Chess was old, I simply updated it instead of investigating the particular display problem. It will not spot check, checkmate, and stalemate, as well as enforce the rules, and the display problem is gone.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2006-60-221
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
I now prefer the line 4...CxN (Wizard checks) 5.KxC (forced) C h8-f6 check, and the Black Wizard on c8 will capture the White Lion sooner or later. White might do better by declining to take the gambit Pawn on move two. Congratulations to Fergus Duniho for marching his King to safety and winning the game.
Game: Cavalier Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-58-663
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
not getting an image on 'd4' on my browser (MSIE 6 on Win98)
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
I don't know if the knights are showing up for other people when they move. Not for me. Not on this browser.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2006-60-221
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Glitch in the program? Looking at this position a second time, I believe the move N c3-anywhere defeats Black's double check.
Game: Templar Chess Log: adrian-cvgameroom-2006-57-002
Adrian Alvarez de la Campa Verified as Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on
The Templar is not quite what you described. It has the dabbabah moves and a two-square Bishop move--that is, one or two squares diagonally without jumping.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-54-945
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'(Since I forgot to eliminate g3 at move 5)'

WARNING: illegal move! There was no reason to remove a square with '-g3'. Counting the 10 blue squares after Black's move 5 verifies that the correct number of removals has been made. Counting the blue squares now shows that there has been one square too many removed.

David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
To answer your question, I believe Black can capture the White Lion.
Jeremy Good Verified as Jeremy Good wrote on
David Paulowich: Will you look upon this game and let me know if I've achieved checkmate? Thanks.
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-simon.langley-evans-2006-29-563
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Yes, it was a bug assuming your Immobilizer was immobilized. Actually, I had written C/c - the Coordinators - instead of X/x - the Chameleons - in the portion of the code checking for Immobilizer immobilization.
Game: Gast Chess Log: olbog-cvgameroom-2006-25-365
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
At all times in the game '... a pawn may move one or two squares forward, and may capture one or two squares diagonally forward.' This means:

White could have played d4-b6 (PxB) on moves 5, 6, and 7.

Black definitely should have played 8...d9-f7 (PxA).

Game: Ultima Log: jonners-simon.langley-evans-2006-29-563
John Langley Verified as John Langley wrote on
I have a problem with the Ultima preset in my game versus Simon Langley-Evans I wish to move my Immobiliser (e.g. g2-f3) but whenever I try this it says An immobilized piece may only commit suicide. I d3 i g2 presumably some bug is assuming my Immobiliser is immobilised (Simon's is)
Game: Gast Chess Log: judgmentality-gwduke-2006-55-426
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
George, you made an illegal Knight move (to the opposite corner of a 4x4 rectangle). This game should be deleted.
Game: Tepuy Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-40-012
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
This was the first Tepuy game in GC. Unfortunatelly, it finished in only two movements, due to an unvoluntary and fatal blunder by Jeremy Good. Sorry. The game is very interesting and really fast, but not so fast in average. Some care is needed in each move.
Game: Mir Chess 36 Log: fergus-david_64-2006-44-218
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
It's fixed now.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I forgot to add new functions for the King in Mir Chess. It draws most of its code from the Eurasian Chess include file, and that game doesn't let Kings cross the river. I'll fix it after I log on at home.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
This preset will enforce rules and spot check, checkmate, and stalemate.you may not move a k from d6 to d5

is the message I get when I enter move 35. I will try again later.

Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-46-987
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
The graphics for this LOG are corrupted. What happens???. I can
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-cvgameroom-2006-20-826
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
Since White is also threatening to capture the King by moving the pincher at g6 to f6, this causing the King to be pinched, it happens to be checkmate without waiting for the next move. Very hard game!
Game: Chess Log: fergus-judgmentality-2006-48-097
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
In this game, I carelessly let Jeremy take my Rook en prise. I could have resigned then and there, but I decided not to give up so quickly. I first tried to trap his Queen, hoping that I could capture it. I got back some material when he had to sacrifice a Knight for a Pawn to free his Queen. When his Queen escaped, it was attacking both my Pawn and Knight, and they weren't protecting each other. But they were attacking the three spaces in front of his King, and his advanced c Pawn left an opening for my Queen to check his King. Two of his possible responses would have resulted in immediate checkmate. The only response that wouldn't was to block the check with his Queen. It would have then been captured by the Knight, putting me ahead, and if he captured the Knight with his Pawn, I would have then captured the Pawn, forking the King and Rook, then capturing the Rook.
Game: Great Chess Log: judgmentality-spindizzy-2006-46-724
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Okay, I think I've now fixed the problem.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I'll look into this when it's not so late.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Fergus, this game announced 'Check!' after Black's move 2 and move 3. Perhaps it is giving a false 'Check!' after every move.
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-cvgameroom-2006-12-572
John Langley Verified as John Langley wrote on
Thank you - haven't tested it yet... will let you know
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Indeed there was a bug. The preset was nullyfing the checks from the black pieces immobilized by the white Immobilizer even when it was Black's turn. Thanks for reporting it. It should be working now.
John Langley Verified as John Langley wrote on
In my game with Matt I have found that the move verifying preset assumes that an Immobilised piece can give Check.
Game: Time Travel Chess Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2006-40-007
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
I am the culprit. I was unaware this set was used for something else than Catapults of Troy, so I added Troy Horses with Archers and changed the pieces on a Catapult to two-letter items. (I also tampered the CoT logs accordingly.)
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Gary, someone had replaced the original gifford-1.php with a new set that didn't include all the pieces in the original set. This is a very bad thing to do, because it will break old games. That's why the Queens were missing. Sets may be added to, but they should never be deleted from. Since the two files had different images for some values, I did not consolidate them. I will leave that up to you if you are the responsible party. I renamed gifford-1.php to gifford-1-spurious.php and gifford-1-old.php to gifford-1.php.
Game: The Travelers Log: rlavieri2003-zcherryz-2006-23-550
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Christine and me are playing now a couple of very intersting test-games. In one of them, It is possible that Christine is going to take a slight advantage, and in the other my position seems to be better. The game play is very nice, I am beginning to love this game, regardless its deepness and, surprisingly, its complexity, somewhat unexpected due the simplicity of the moves of pieces.
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-cvgameroom-2006-12-572
John Langley Verified as John Langley wrote on
Suicide works - thanks
Game: Grand Chess Log: pioneer54-michaeljay-2005-219-308
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
My worthy opponent is trying to make the move which advances to the 8th rank and converting to bishop with check--which should be legal, but the sequence is not going through. Any suggestions as to how it should be done?
Game: Ultima Log: jonners-cvgameroom-2006-12-572
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Sorry, I thought suicide was working on Ultima the way it does at Rococo, but it was not. It looks like it is now corrected (except that it may allow some illegal suicides), but in case you are unwilling to wait for correction of possible further bugs, you may prefer to use the non-move-veryfing presets. (This remark concerns only my own move-veryfing presets for the Ultima-Rococo-Maxima-Fugue family. The majority of the move-veryfing presets are maintained by the inventor of Game Courier himself, and use functions instead of long series of conditionals, with presumably fewer bugs.)
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
You sent me email indicating that the Game Courier parser was refusing to accept your move (21. ....., suicide of the pincher at c7), no matter how you write it. But if the script parser ever starts to work correctly, and implement that move, I think that White's best move, in response, will be to bring the Leaper down from b6 to c7 so that the Immobilizer won't get pinched.
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: david_64-penswift-2006-4-133
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Once again Gary played the flexible 'Four Pawns Defence'. He lost a Knight late in the game because 30...Nb5? is met by 31.Exe6 checkmate. The fact that an Elephant attack cannot be blocked makes it a very useful piece on a crowded board, compensating for its short range.

Not tried in the game was: 40... a2? 41.Eb3 Rc1+ 42.Kxc1 a1(G) 43.Kc2 Nf3 44.Re6 Nxc2 45.Re1 Gb1+ 46.Rxb1 Nxb1 47.Kxb1 and Black is facing a lost endgame. Thinking about this line, I first considered moving my Rook to a6 in an attempt to win the Black General outright. But 43...Nf3 threatens 44...Ne1+ and appears to force an even trade.

Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: mikenels-joejoyce-2006-5-806
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Allow me to offer my congratulations to Michael Nelson here. I placed Courier Chess first on my list, because I went to school with the inventor (old guy joke). By the way, Joe may not get back on the internet until Monday.
Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: david_64-penswift-2005-364-519
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
After making four pawn moves, White's position resembled the start of a game of Makruk. It will take more than one game to decide whether this highly original opening is sound or not. My thanks to Gary for playtesting Mir Chess 32.
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-4-994
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
This is the variation of Baroque/Ultima that appears to be most popular with the players in the New England or New York part of the world. The Long Leaper is capable of multi-leaping (provided an empty square exists just after the piece taken, and the entire path taken by the Leaper is a straight line without any friendly pieces in the way). Another rule that we have to permit, is that of allowing an immobilized piece to commit suicide, though I'd like to say that I find that objectionable. (Anyway, only one piece can suicide per turn; it would be an interesting variation to permit mass suicides in Baroque/Ultima.)
Game: Grand Shatranj test Log: joejoyce-penswift-2005-328-033
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'Addendum to C2 - if the player wishes, or no captured piece is available, pawns may promote to general.' was Joe's 2005-12-16 Kibbitz to our game of Great Shatranj (80 squares). As for this game, 'Pawns - the pawns may promote on 8th & 9th and must on 10th rank. Pawns promote to lost pieces.' was the move two message.

Gary, check out today's ShatranjSwapMeet Comment if you are looking for a PBM game. Yours, david_64

Game: Switching Chess Log: rlavieri2003-fergus-2005-339-737
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
It was a very complex beautiful game. In my opinion, around 30
Game: Chess Log: bro-cvgameroom-2005-356-863
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
You seem to be playing both sides in this game. You will need to send another invitation in order for someone else to play you. Not much interest in ordinary chess on this site - you might have a better chance of finding an opponent for a game of Fischer Random Chess.
Game: Chess Log: m21b21-cvgameroom-2005-333-257
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Jose: It appears that you chose the White pieces in this game, but you did not send your move.
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2005-307-426
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/optima.html

leads to Michael Howe's Optima page, with both 10x10 and 9x9 variants. There are supposed to be 10 Comments, but clicking on the 'View all comments' line leads to an empty page. Also: the Query Results, Starts with the letter 'O', page does not have an Optima entry. Curious!

Game: Great Shatranj Test Log: joejoyce-david_64-2005-349-277
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Specific pieces and rules for this game: K = king - 1 step any Q = general - 1 step any B = 'elefant' - alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diagonally only N = knight - jump 1 ortho, then 1 diag outward R = 'dababba' - dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 orthogonally only M = 'minister' - knight-dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 ortho only; after slide 1, may slide 1 diag outward A = 'high priest' - knight-alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diag only; after slide 1, may slide 1 ortho outward P = pawn - moves 1 ortho forward only; captures 1 diag forward only Promotion rules: A1 - Promotion is on the 8th rank - recommended for Great Shatranj. B1 - Only pawns promote - recommended. C2 - Moderate restriction: pawns promote only to lost pieces, and no more than 1 of each type. Further, if an alfil/elephant is taken, it cannot be put on the 'same color' (same half of the board) as a remaining friendly alfil/elephant; and an augmented knight must be different than a remaining friendly augmented knight - recommended for Great Shatranj. Addendum to C2 - if the player wishes, or no captured piece is available, pawns may promote to general.
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I wrote this preset before I developed code and methods for spotting checkmate, and I haven't updated it since then. It just doesn't spot checkmate.
Game: Shatranj of Troy Log: joejoyce-penswift-2005-328-037
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'David Paulowich is commenting on shatranj (and other ancient variants), and is also working on a shako-style game. Think we might get him to swap games? I know, dream on.'

Be careful what you wish for. (Cue ominous music) I direct your attention to my 'ShatranjSwapMeet' subject on the Ratings and Comments page.

Game: Grosses Schach 10x10 Log: caissus-cvgameroom-2005-335-699
Uwe Kreuzer Verified as Uwe Kreuzer wrote on
Rules of this chessvariant in English : http://caissus.gmxhome.de/Rules_great_chess_10x10.htm
Game: Rococo Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2005-305-786
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I can certainly understand your position, but that doesn't necessarily mean I should agree to your interpretation of the written rules. Whoever bothers to write down these rules should talk to the host of the website this is being played on (htt://www.chessvariants.org) and ask them to edit the rules. The problem with your interpretation is that it flies in the face of the comments I'd made a month or two ago, and which nobody bothered to correct me about. At this point in time we have no way of knowing if the current rules are the same as those in effect when gwduke and carlos were playing their game, though I will assume they are. The only thing we know for sure is that gwduke arrived at some kind of consensus about what they felt was a proper resolution to an ambiguity in the rules. I don't accept that consensus, and suggest that gwduke and carlos resume their game at the point where carlos attempted to leap a piece that was adjacent to his leaper. In any case, as you can see from the position I had worked towards, all three of my cannonball pawns were brought together so that they would be adjacent to each other; all three cannonballs were also, in fact, adjacent to the Leaper in question; the word 'adjacent' is found in the rules I was working under, and the moves I was contemplating, suggested a situation that was bound by those rules. The rules should be edited so that the words 'immediately after' replace the words 'somewhere beyond.' There is no need to muddy the waters with words about adjacency, and in fact made worse by talking about adjacency. At this point, however, carlos and gwduke should resume their game according to the plain meaning of the rules that were in place. I don't agree to follow the 'answer' that they ended up agreeing to. Until the rules are actually edited to reflect the informal agreement that gwduke and carlos entered into, we have reached an impasse.
Todor Tchervenkov Verified as Todor Tchervenkov wrote on
Longleapers can captured pieces adjacent to them (the LL)! What they cannot do is
capturing pieces which are adjacent one to each other. Dont be confused.
Here is an example of legal capture:
+---+---+---+---+---+
| L | p |   | * |   |
+---+---+---+---+---+
and the pawn is captured. And an example of illegal capture:
+---+---+---+---+---+
| L |   | p | p | * |
+---+---+---+---+---+
where the LL cannot land on the square marked by '*'.
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves at an impasse over the rule about capturing adjacent pieces. However, we had both commented on this rule in our previous game (see the comments to moves 30 and 31), and I expressed surprise that pieces adjacent to the Leaper could not be captured. Since then, I've mentioned to Joe Joyce in our game of Ultima that Leapers most certainly *could* capture enemy pieces that are adjacent to it, the important thing being, that the next square immediately after the target is open, this being a major distinction between Rococo and Ultima. The problem with ambiguously written rules is that there is a ripple effect that goes well past the games that are being played by those rules, as other games are affected, too. Newcomers to one game rely upon the distinctions that are made with other, earlier games to learn the differences. The ripple effect of misunderstandings began about two months ago, at least between us. It is unfortunate that you and Carlos decided that the rules permitted that which you and I talked about, and agreed did not.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
yeah thanks blackie, we got it 'drawn' now :)
(zzo38) A. Black Verified as (zzo38) A. Black wrote on
I think you type 'drawn' to drawn, not 'draw'.
Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: rlavieri2003-crazytom-2005-205-113
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
The game was decided after White
Game: Shatranj Log: penswift-crazytom-2005-205-115
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Quite a game going on here. As the remaining elephant and ferz on each side can guard each other but never threaten the other side's pieces, the maneuvering ought to be quite interesting. Are there spectacular (said tongue-in-cheek, as there appear to be few if any 'spectacular' moves anywhere in shatranj) sacrifices in the future, or will the pieces remain on the board to block pawns? Will the 'bare king' rule come into effect? Can black even the game? Pity the game takes so long to load, I'd love to run through the moves on-screen.
Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2005-300-428
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I might have mentioned that pinchers in Baroque/Ultima tend to be placed most favorably towards one another, or towards pieces they are friendly to, if they are a Knight's move away. I think that that is just a rule of thumb, and you have to be on your toes in case some kind of exception arises to place them somewhere else. Another rule of thumb is that, as pieces given to the 'custodial' mode of capture, they are placed towards the edges of the board. That means that, without a good reason to do otherwise, they should not be placed in the center of the board. For players used to traditional chess, it is easy to think of the pincher as a pawn-like piece that always moves forward. However, some of the best positional moves in Baroque/Ultima lie in moving the pinchers sideways, often to the very edge of the board.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
well done yes, finally it is offical :) he he
Game: Chess with Different Armies Log: fergus-lazyking-2005-205-108
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Interesting end. Black could force a draw in some opportunities, but Mike played to see if it was a possible a victory, although I think it was not a real possibility. I believe that Black move 55 was the definitive error: 55...k e6-d6(?). It could be better f7-f5,the last chance for an even result.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Christine, I got it! There is a drop-down menu in the game status line that lets you choose draw! I went through the guide a couple of times and found nothing about draws either. Possibly if the game checked moves and for mate, it would recognize 'draw', but this preset doesn't. For what it's worth, I had to send you the draw move as #49 to get it to register, although there is a way to back up and re-do a move. Maybe next game we'll figure that out. Enjoy!
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
joe, lol, i'm trying to get game courier to understand this is a draw, i tired 'draw' and then '//draw' but got messages to go back and refresh page, then i tried 'draw // draw' lol, but it seems to think it is your move now :) i can't see anything whatsoever in the guide about 'draws'?! so i dunno, any ideas? your move btw :) just noticed also, i guess it is indicating to you that it is your 49th move to play, so it has accepted my 47th 'draw' as a move, and your 48th and my 48th moves, non moves again, 'draw' moves, as actual moves. hey, this is kinda fun lol :)
Game: Rococo Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2005-170-048
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
Oops! I said 'check' but it obviously isn't check. I was getting ahead of myself.
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
It's a funny thing about pawn structures in Rococo, unlike traditional Chess, pawns almost never lock together, but rather gravitate around each other, always with a little safety zone between them. Even though we managed to exchange some pawns, the pawn structures seem to remain very stable.
Game: Anti-King Chess II Log: mageofmaple-tony_quintanilla-2004-336-980
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
Can you phrase the rules for Anti-King Chess a little bit differently? The way I read the rules, it appears that a little bit of interpretation can make these rules operate differently than actually intended. For instance, the rules say that an Anti-King is 'checkmated' if it is no longer in a state of check. Does it matter if the real King is in check? If a player must choose between moving a real King out of check, and keeping an Anti-King in check, what is he allowed to do if he finds himself in zugzwang, and must choose between the two, where complying with one rule will cause him to violate the other? I'd think that checking an enemy King in such a way that his Anti-King would have to be moved out of check, would constitute a loss as well.
Game: Rococo Log: gwduke-cvgameroom-2005-170-048
Matthew Montchalin Verified as Matthew Montchalin wrote on
I think I just tried to hop over your Cannonball Pawn and capture it by hopping? Instead of landing? Well, if that is what happened (and seeing as how Game Courier isn't set up to let me back up to see), could you put the Cannonball Pawn back where it was before I zeroed it out? This whole thing is probably the result of a little mirage on my end.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Thanks for the comments, David. Glad you enjoyed the game. I found it very interesting, in the perjorative sense of interesting. :-) I did my best to avoid swapping elephants; as you can see, I needed both. Felt I had the advantage after the general-knight trade, but Christine, you always blocked anything I did, and kept improving your position no matter what I tried. Figured I was dead when you managed to spring your second rook; my whole game plan was to get my rook to your back rank for an 'X-ray' check to get that rook, then I had a won game. After that, I was trying to avoid defeat by pushing the attack and using my pair of elephants for 'fire control'. Talk about dancing elephants... And, Christine, of course I'm paranoid; I live smack dab in the middle of the New York metro area. Everyone here is either paranoid or acts it. Draws are a different matter. I think some games must be inherently drawish, far more so than others; and I suspect MS has some of those characteristics. When I come up with a good way to frame the debate, or at least the question, I'll put it in the general comments section (where it will undoubtedly be ignored ;-)
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
oh i have just noticed now last two comments, thanks for your views David. Was it interesting, he he, i really felt like i was fighting to save the game from the moment i took Joe's general with my knight (move 15). Not that i think the knight is better than general, but i gave up ok/good position (i think) for material advantage, and that really isn't my style, and i'll never do that again lol. i hated the game from that point on :) Yeah, i needed to swap elephants, your right. Did i have a chance? :) ... i really can't remember now, i think i was always wanting to swap pieces from move 15 :) And Joe, I think you might be a little paranoid about the idea of MS being very drawish, i am sure plenty of games would end in a result other than draw. Anyway, i guess it was a fun game :) i just couldn't see a win for black (me) in the end, too dangerous to do anything, those pawns coming down at me :)
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
I would like to thank you both for this interesting game!

Joe, the moves 45. Rc1-a1 and 46. Ra1-a5 should force a draw. White's Elephant pair is very strong in the center of the board and Black has to worry about the weak Black Pawn (a7).

Christine, now you know which endgame to avoid. You needed to force a trade of the light-square Elephants early in the game - then your General could have exploited the colorboundness of the lone White Elephant. If that was not possible, you could try to trade your Elephant for two White Pawns. Good winning chances for Black - also some losing chances(!)

Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
This game has ended in a draw. Clearly the MS general is stronger than the MS elephant or knight; David you were absolutely right. For a great number of turns before the end, the board was in what I consider a classic draw position: the pieces spread evenly over the center of the board, the remaining pawns left on each side facing each other, a few pieces backing them up - enough to prevent a breakthrough by the other side, but not enough to attack and force a breakthrough. This leads me to ask about the frequency of draws. My last 3 shatranj-type games, one historic shatranj and 2 MS games, have all been draws. Is this a coincidence, or is MS, or the game of shatranj in general, prone to draws? I know that high-level chess is very drawish, but if you look at my play, you'll see that is not why I draw. So, either erratic or low-level play also leads to draws, or there is an inherent drawishness to some (types of) games. The more I think about this, the more I think I need to ask these questions in the general comments area, but there is one question I could ask here: 'Could anybody do better with either side in this game than the original moves? Can a winning strategy be demonstrated, just for this game?'
Game: Anti-King Chess II Log: mageofmaple-tony_quintanilla-2004-336-980
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Since this game has been idle for a while, this is a reminder to all that this is an open-kibbitz game; anyone may comment on any aspect of the game in progress. In fact, observations and suggestions are appreciated. The goal is to have, when we are finished, the record of a very high-level error-free game that can be studied. In this position, I'm inclined to develop the other knight (g8) to e7, declaring anti-check. It might be better to make a stronger developing move, though... Perhaps I'm just too eager to declare anti-check :)
Game: Shogi Log: niccar-zcherryz-2005-126-976
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
thanks yes, it was a very interesting game, our other game is a great game also :)
Game: Balanced Marseillais Chess Log: rlavieri2003-andreas-2005-207-126
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Good short game, Andreas. You take advantage of my weak opening and played with high precision. No, if k e1-d1, P e2-e4 you can make a massacre with my pieces and I would have to resign in two moves. Morality: in this game extreme care is needed from the first move.
Game: Avalanche Chess Log: math-cvgameroom-2004-314-482
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
this game was so long ago that i don't remember much about it. i am about to start another game and took a look at it. i made two silly errors in the first move. first, i pushed a pawn. according to the rules, the game is too biased if white has a push first move. also, i moved that pawn two squares. it's only supposed to ever be one square. mathieus also moved a pawn two squares in one turn. shoddy reading of the rules by both of us!
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
It's possible, as the same thing happened in my even quicker loss to Antoine in chinese chess. In that instance, 2 cannon in line delivered the checkmate. I didn't have an effective capture or interposition, nor a king move, but had to resign to 'give' him the win. Waited a week on that one, too.Hate to admit to being such a bad player, but I'm kinda hoping these 2 games are anomalies.
Michael Nelson Verified as Michael Nelson wrote on
Is it possible that the preset doesn't handle double check correctly? Could this also be a problem in other presets? Black could counter the Unicorn check or the Lion check, but not both at once as this requires a move of the Queen and he has none.
Game: Mitosis Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2005-156-774
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
I don't know what is going on here... I very specifically deleted all rule-enforcement code from this preset. I am sure of it. And now, there it is... I can only assume that it is some continuation of the file-write-security problems that the site had for quite a while there (and maybe still does.) Can someone with appropriate access kill all rule enforcement code from this preset?
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
WARNING! any attempt to move a piece from f9 or d9 results in: <p>Syntax Error on line 161 <p>The function t has not been defined.
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
It most certainly is, Roberto. The preset doesn't recognize this, though. I was going to wait a few more days, hoping someone could fix that, before I sent 'resign' as my move. I just think he earned a 'mate', not a 'resign'. No difference in the final score, though.
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: antoinefourriere-cvgameroom-2005-158-780
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Very interesting game.
Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
It is Checkmate. What a beautiful position.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
it is no doubt interesting giving the fers/general the movement of king and elephant the extra 1 step diagonal move, i guess it all depends on position of course, just like in chess when sometimes the knight is better than the bishop, and other times the bishop is better. i do agree, the general seems much better than the elephant ... seeing this game is new, and has not been played much, the more times it is played, things will become clearer .. pretty interesting game indeed.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/pieceval/fig2key.html <p>gives some of Betza's thoughts on piece values. My piece values are intended for the late endgame, when a Rook will dominate the board. But nothing is carved in stone - many writers reduce the Rook's value to 14 or so (4.66 Pawns). Feel free to quote my numbers - but I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. How would I rate the pair of MS elephants? I mistrust colorbound pieces. In fact, I have made a career out of trading a Bishop for a Knight in the opening and using my 'deadly Knight pair' in the middle game. Also I generally get good results in one Knight versus one Bishop endgames. <p>Here are some simple endgames. FIRST: K+N vs K+R is usually a draw, except when the White King happens to be on the edge of the board. Perhaps there may also be a chance for a stalemate victory in a Shatranj variant. SECOND: consider the position WHITE K(b2) and E(e5), BLACK K(d3) and G(c4). After White moves the Elephant, the Black General will check on c3, pushing the White King to the edge of the board. I really don't know if there is a forced mate here - Zillions can be useful for testing endgame positions. THIRD: K+E+E vs K+G+P pits a 16 point force against a 15 point force. But Black may be able to advance the Pawn until White is forced to trade an Elephant for it, leading to the sort of endgame I dealt with in the previous note. Generals appear to be much stronger than Elephants.
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
i don't think you blundered allowing my knight to take your general, if i had the move over i would take the elephant with the knight, and disrupt your pawns. i think i blundered with that move, because you gained in development, with the rook taking my knight, your rook moved to the center, and you also gained space. after this move, i feel your game was much better, even if down material.
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: antoinefourriere-cvgameroom-2005-158-780
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Carlos, <p>Actually, I think my idea to run the Catapult until I could launch the Ram and/or the Troy Horse (and/or the h Pawn) was perfectly sound. All I had to do was to play 3. Bb2 and to catapult the Rook on the fifth row followed by 5. Lc1 to lock up everything. My move 9 was also bad. I should have taken more time to catapult the Ram. Maybe I played chicken on move 13 when I could have sacrificed the Troy Horse, forcing you to capture it with your Ram, thus allowing 14. M a7 and threatening your Catapult after allowing one unique Archer or chasing it perpetually, but it seems that it wouldn't have won. Afterwards you were very probably right to trade your Troy Horse, but I think you could have saved your second Archer (20... a d1-f1+ 21. CK g2-g5 b f11-e10 (!) 22. A h7xh9 a f1xh3 23. N f7xd8 e9xd8) and now both your King and your Bridge-Builder can flee while I am only able to exfiltrate my Rook. (At the time, I felt I had a draw anyway.) As it went, with only one Archer, my Rook could stay on the Catapult and either capture your Rook, exchange your Bridge Builder or promote a second Archer. <p>I'm adding below the invisible (that is, between HTML comment tags) zsg of the game in case either you or Gary wants to analyze it, but you'll have to download the latest version for the zrf, because the previous version does not allow a Troy Horse to release an Archer and to fall back on its Catapult (my move 15). <!-- Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HHC RulesFile=C:(directory)\Catapults of Troy.zrf VariantName=Catapults of Troy 1. Bishop c1 - a3 1. Troy-Horse g11 - f9 2. Rook a1 x b1 = Catapult-with-Rook 2. Catapult b11 x a11 = Catapult-with-Rook 3. Catapult-with-Rook b1 x d1 White Rook b1 = Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder on d1 3. Troy-Horse f9 - e7 4. Rook b1 - b5 4. Catapult-with-Rook a11 - a1 Black Catapult a11 = Rook on a1 5. Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder d1 x e1 White Bridge-Builder d1 = Catapult-with-King on e1 5. Rook a1 x a2 6. Bishop f1 - h3 6. Rook a2 x a3 7. Catapult-with-King e1 x g1 White King e1 = Catapult-with-Troy-Horse on g1 7. Ram h11 - g11 8. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g1 x h1 White Troy-Horse g1 = Catapult-with-Ram on h1 8. Troy-Horse e7 - f9 9. Catapult-with-Ram h1 - h7 White Catapult h1 = Ram on h7 9. Ram g11 - g7 10. Pawn e2 - e3 10. Catapult a11 x a10 = Catapult-with-Pawn 11. Catapult h1 x g1 = Catapult-with-Troy-Horse 11. Pawn h10 - h9 12. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g1 - g5 12. Pawn e10 - e9 13. Ram h7 - a7 x g7 x f7 x e7 x d7 x c7 x b7 x a7 13. Catapult-with-Pawn a10 - a1 Black Catapult a10 = Archer on a1 14. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g5 - h7 White Catapult g5 = Troy-Horse on h7 14. Troy-Horse f9 - d8 15. Troy-Horse h7 x g5 White Archer h7 = Catapult-with-Knight on g5 15. Catapult a10 x c10 = Catapult-with-Pawn 16. King e1 - f1 16. Catapult-with-Pawn c10 - c1 Black Catapult c10 = Archer on c1 17. Bridge-Builder d1 x c1 17. Archer a1 x c1 18. Catapult-with-Knight g5 - g2 White Knight g5 = Catapult on g2 18. Catapult c10 x d10 = Catapult-with-Pawn 19. Knight g5 - f7 19. Catapult-with-Pawn d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 = Archer on d1 20. King f1 x g2 = Catapult-with-King 20. Troy-Horse d8 x f7 21. x f7 21. Bishop f11 - e10 22. Archer h7 x h9 22. Archer d1 - e2 23. Catapult-with-King g2 - g11 White Catapult g2 = King on g11 23. Archer e2 x f2 24. Catapult g2 - g5 24. King e11 x d10 = Catapult-with-King 25. Archer h9 - g10 25. Catapult-with-King d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 = King on d1 26. Bishop h3 - g4 26. King d1 x d2 27. Catapult g5 x g4 = Catapult-with-Bishop 27. King d2 x e3 28. Catapult-with-Bishop g4 - g5 28. Archer f2 - f4 29. Catapult-with-Bishop g5 x f4 White Catapult g5 = Bishop on f4 29. King e3 x f4 30. Archer g10 x f10 30. Bridge-Builder d11 x d10 = Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder 31. x e10 31. Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 = Bridge-Builder on d1 32. Archer f10 - e11 32. Bishop c11 - b10 33. x d10 33. Archer c1 x c2 34. Catapult g5 x b5 = Catapult-with-Rook 34. Archer c2 - c4 35. Catapult-with-Rook b5 - b2 35. Bridge-Builder d1 - c1 36. Catapult-with-Rook b2 - g2 36. Rook a3 - h3 37. Catapult-with-Rook g2 x h2 White Rook g2 = Catapult-with-Pawn on h2 37. King f4 - f3 -->
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Hi, David. Okay, I agree there is a penalty for being vulnerable to check, but there should be since the king can at most be passive-agressive. Where your numbers run up against my 40 years held beliefs is in the relative values of the rook and the general. It doesn't feel right that the distance between knight and general is the same as between general and rook. I might shade the general's value toward 11. Of course, I was originally looking at it as 7, so I'm basically willing to go along with your values. This means I blundered in allowing the knight-general exchange. I wondered about that when I did it, but it neutralized black's one forward piece. How would you rate the pair of MS elephants? I feel 2 elephants and 1 knight are superior to 1 elephant and 2 knights, even though the point totals favor 2N + 1E to 2E + 1N 26 to 25. The E pair can work side-by-side to cover the 4 adjacent squares directly fronting them, where the knights can't. And they retain the jumping ability, so they can't be blocked, either. I'd lean toward EEN = 27 or 28, to NNE = 26. But these are just guesses on my part. What kinds of modern references for solid numbers do we have? And how do we adjust them to the range of variants that even the 2 of us have made? Thanks for the comment and the info. I'm very tempted to ask if I might reference/include your comment with the soon-to-be updated MS page. This is the first glimmering of something that could lead to a strategy or two. Lastly, I'd like to ask what you think the odds of a draw are in both Shatranj and MS?
Game: Catapults of Troy Log: antoinefourriere-cvgameroom-2005-158-780
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
antoine, good game! i'm curious to know if you would have played any differently to me towards the end? i had gary do that king switch on me in an earlier game where it caught me by surprise, so i was ready for it this time and planned to send my own king plus the bridge-builder over. i felt in control for a long time, but i didn't anticipate how annoying your few remaining pieces on your home side would be. maybe you did start poorly, but i think you finished well. that early stage was weird. you moved your catapult pretty much the whole way across the back row... seemed like negative play, but each time the catapult has a piece a whole bunch of new threats show up. i'm not sure if my swap of the archer horse for the horse was sound or not. i did it to rule out the possibility of defeat, but in the end it might have ruled out victory too? be interested to know what gary thought of this game.
Game: Toccata Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2005-169-561
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
...'The Jumper may also move or capture by jumping over any piece and landing over the next square (again, in any of the six Rook-wise directions).' Jumper is a 'short Cannon' in some sense, it can only capture jumping over an intervening piece, but only if there is an enemy to capture in the inmediate next square in that direction. It can also jump if the next square after the jumped piece is empty, but there is not any capture in this case.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Pawn=3, Elephant=8, Knight=9, General=12, Rook=15 is my 'best guess' for the values of the pieces. Back in 1996 Ralph Betza said your General (also called Commoner) was no stronger than the Knight, but he later corrected that mistake. Setting the King itself at 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 points would only make sense if you assign a large penalty for being vulnerable to checks. Elephants and Knights are valuable on a crowded board, but less so in endgames where their ability to leap is mostly irrelevant. <p>I believe I can offer more than just a guess as to what constitutes suffient mating force against a lone King on the 8x8 board. King and one General will suffice, as will King and two Elephants. King and two Knights can slowly force a stalemate victory. Compare the forced mate in sixty moves (or so) in some FIDE endgames where King and two Knights first blockade the lone enemy Pawn, then force the enemy King into a corner, then move in and 'stalemate' the King. After the Pawn makes a move or two, one of the Knights shifts from 'stalemate' to checkmate.
Game: Toccata Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2005-169-561
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i must be stupid. what's the difference between the jumper and the long leaper?
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
When I open the LOG, I can see the squares in which the cursor is over, at least as espectator, I aam not sure if it will happen when I enter in the LOG as player. Carlos Carlos, can you see the positions in the view mode, entering in the LOG as espectator in Game Courier?. If not, there is a problem with your system. If yes, you can plan your next move viewing the positions in the LOG, before entering in the player
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i've lost the ability to tell which square the cursor is over. nothing appears. i guess i've accidentally changed something in my settings?? help!
Game: Mitosis Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2005-156-774
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Actually, now when I go back and look at my NoRules settings for this game, the rules are back! I don't know what's going on, but I can only assume we still have file permission problems at the very least.
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Hmmm... I seem to be unable to make the move f1-c4... It says funciton T is undefined, but I'm pretty sure I cleared out all rule-enforcement code. Not sure what's going on here...
Game: Maxima Log: lazyking-rlavieri2003-2005-103-580
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
The game has ended. Mike, you played well, but you have not controled the Immobilizer in the ends, perhaps you could to that with your pair of Chameleons. Nevertheless, it was far from easy to win. Good game.
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
I can not make my selected move 39, when I try to move my Long-Leaper capturing a Pawn, it appears the message: 'An immobilized piece may only commit suicide'. But the case is that my Long-Leaper is NOT immobilized, it is adjacent to my OWN Immobilizer. Can someone see what happens and help me?
Game: Great Chess Log: andreas-carlos-2005-66-199
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
oh, i was wondering where this game had gone. i missed that mate. good game. this was good because i was outplayed... you played well from start to finish. i've lost a couple of games in this tournament through retarded blunders which are much more annoying. good luck with the rest of the tournament!
Game: Extinction Chess Log: andreas-joejoyce-2005-107-138
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
15...p g7-g5 (!!) was a winner move, and I think the only one, almost all the rest are LOSING moves. Morality: this game is not easy to play, and extreme care is needed, in some moments there may be many 'royal' pieces on the board, and you must take care on all of them at the same time.
Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-rlavieri2003-2005-121-814
Christine Bagley-Jones Verified as Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on
hey someone should make this game into a zillions game come on lol :)
Tony Quintanilla Verified as Tony Quintanilla wrote on
Joe, if you send the preset URL to the editors we can post your preset for this game.
Game: Opulent Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2005-122-773
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Greg: the Rules Button for this game links to Wildebeest Chess.
Game: Maxima Log: lazyking-rlavieri2003-2005-103-580
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
I have not idea who has the advantage, Black has a piece more and Black is going to have also some quality advantage, and White has, in compensation, four Pawns more, six against two, so Black defense is somewhat nude. Position is going to be open, and all can happen. Black can
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: crazytom-mageofmaple-2005-66-189
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
I'm not sure what I was thinking on move 25. I needed to make the safe move, 25. Qd7. With all the unfamiliar variants in this tournament, it's kind of embarrassing to be caught blundering in good old chess. <p>I really liked the starting position in this game, but I suppose when all the bishops start in the corners they're destined to be traded off in the center.
Game: Shatranj Log: joejoyce-rlavieri2003-2005-99-890
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Assuming that you do not promote a Pawn to a Ferz, then your variant is different enough that you should write it up as a stand-alone variant. I suggest you first check out my Shatranj Kamil (64), soon to be a last minute entry in the 10-Contest. I will have a lot to say about bare king loss, and other rules. Note: Gothic Isles Chess has the only ZRF (to my knowledge) that correctly implements the classic Shatranj bare king rule. Most ZRFs are worse than useless, as I indicated in my 2005-03-30 Comment on the Shatranj page.
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
David, thanks for the reference. The variants are quite similar, although Peter obviously spent more time on his. Mine was created as I was typing the words in the comment to Roberto. What is the ettiquette for something like this 'modern' shatranj variant? Do I add it as a comment to Gothic Isles Chess (and possibly, Shatranj Kamil), write it up as a stand-alone variant (with references), or is there an actual modest variants section where it would reasonably fit? (One of the current 'comments' asks what happened to the modest variant section, so I assume there at least was one.) Also, I'm surprised that people actually read those lengthy comments between moves, although I can see why people following the tournament would be interested in how Roberto's doing this year. (Still, I'm surprised that Roberto reads the comments.)
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Joe, your idea for 'Modern Shatranj' is very close to Peter Aronson's Gothic Isles Chess (April 2001). That variant has two 'Dragons' that move like Elephants or Counsellors, plus a single 'Champion' that moves like a Counsellor or forward orthogonally (compare the Silver General in Shogi). Pawns promote to a variety of pieces. Also, I am currently putting the finishing touches on Shatranj Kamil (64), with 18 pieces in each army on an 8x8 board, including a brand new version of the Elephant. Pawns promote to Silver Generals.
Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: mageofmaple-fergus-2005-89-723
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Thanks for quoting C. L. Moore's explanation for the two names. But I wouldn't fully trust that explanation for the Hulk's name, since the comic book character's full name is Robert Bruce Banner, not Bruce David Banner. I think I recall reading in Stan Lee's Soapbox that they used the name of David Banner on the TV show, because it sounded better than Bruce. But I think he was whitewashing over the real reason, which is that the name Bruce (perhaps because of ridiculous speculations over the relationship between Batman and Robin) has come to be associated with gays. Still, this explanation may be why his name is Robert Bruce Banner. According to one webpage I found through Google, the Hulk was called Bob Banner for a couple issues, apparently because Lee and Kirby forgot his name was Bruce.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'In the first story he was called Galloway. Then we packed up and drove to the other coast, and when Hank wrote the second story he had forgotten this and called the character Gallegher. He eventually got around this very neatly by explaining that the man was, of course, Galloway Gallegher. Which sounds rather like the logic of Gallegher himself.' - C. L. Moore (circa 1975) <p>David says: I recall Stan Lee telling a similar story regarding David Bruce Banner [The Incredible Hulk].
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Since I have 'Time Locker' and 'Proud Robot' in a different anthology, can you summarize what she says about using two different names for the same character?
Game: Great Chess Log: mikenels-joejoyce-2005-66-203
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Draw accepted. Hi, Mike. I thought about it for hours. When you said you were thinking about offering a draw last turn, I thought we should exchange at least most of the major pieces, but looking at the position and how we've been playing, I think you're right. We could easily play another 30+ moves without getting anywhere unless someone blunders. I think we should recommend to Fergus that tournaments use the optional pawn first move double step and castling rules. It would not only speed the game up, it might loosen it up. If you could actually get a pawn where you wanted without telegraphing the move and giving your opponent a reply move, you might see more interesting tactics. Thanks for the game. Luck in the rest of the tournament. Joe
Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: mageofmaple-fergus-2005-89-723
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'Jurisprudence should be founded on justice, and not be a three-dimensional chess game.' from Time Locker, one of five fascinating stories in the hardcover book 'Robots Have No Tails' (c) 1952 by Lewis Padgett. Also available as a 95 cent Lancer Science Fiction Library paperback, with Henry Kuttner (author) and C. L. Moore (new introduction). She explains the confusion that resulted in the lead character being named Galloway Gallegher.
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Okay, I can live with that. <p>Certainly the ZRF confirms Peter's original intent. What I said about Zillions of Games was meant to explain why it would not occur to someone like me to look in a ZRF for clarification of rules which already seemed clear. Basically, I don't use Zillions, so I generally don't pay any attention to ZRFs. I don't recall whether I ever looked at one before yesterday, and until I did I didn't know or expect that it would contain a human-language description of the rules. <p>If the original text of the Rococo page was ambiguous, it was ambiguous in an unusual way. It seems that almost anyone who reads it without prior experience with the game sees only one interpretation, but different people don't all see the same interpretation. So the ambiguity is hidden: it goes unnoticed until people with different interpretations play a game in which a certain type of position arises. Since the ambiguity was not obvious, the original text was misleading. (Certainly no one intended to mislead anyone, but as it happened I and others were misled.) <p>It's unfortunate that this happened in a tournament game, but at least now we all know what the rule is, and future generations of Rococo players won't have to have this argument. <p>In other news, I've been trying to google up the story of the 19th-century chess master who once promoted a pawn to a piece of the other color. It was Pillsbury, according to a post by Ed Trice on CVP's Gothic Chess page, but I can't find a complete account. I seem to remember that someone almost got pushed through a window, but perhaps my mind has jumbled two stories together.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
<P>Thomas,</P> <P>It is not a matter of you being responsible for checking the ZRF, and the commercial status of Zillions of Games is irrelevant to this matter. What is important here is that the text description of the rules given in the ZRF's <KBD>description</KBD> field matches the clarification Peter made to the page on this site. The copy on my computer is several years old and reads the same as you just quoted. This is hard evidence that the revision Peter made to the Rococo page was a clarification to the rules and not a revision of them. Basically, Peter had published two different descriptions of the game, and one was ambiguous while the other was clear. It was the ambiguity of the webpage description that originally led to this discussion over the rules. When the ambiguity was brought to his attention, Peter corrected it by bringing the ambiguous description in line with the clear description. So the ruling that the Long Leaper move was illegal will stand.</P>
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: rlavieri2003-antoinefourriere-2005-67-759
Michael Nelson Verified as Michael Nelson wrote on
A most interesting game. Value classes 7 & 8 are not essential to game play as they will so seldom occur, but neither do they harm gameplay and they make the piece set logically complete. As for the SuperCardinal, it is the strongest vc5 piece in terms of mobility calculated a la Betza, but is weaker than any vc6 piece. Look at it this way. A Rook is one atom stronger than a Bishop: we add a 'super' move to each and a SuperRook is one atom stronger than a SuperBishop (perhaps the gap narrows a bit as the super move removes colorbinding for the Bishop). Now if a Chancellor is one atom stronger than a Cardinal adding the super move to each should likewise leave the SuperChancellor one atom stronger than the SuperCardinal. By the way, the SuperCardinal can push the King around quite nicely, but the SuperChancellor can mate unassisted.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Congratulations to both of you for an exciting game! <p>I wish to strongly disagree with any proposal that the SuperCardinal should be redefined as a class 6 piece. In fact, the CardinalRider (Unicorn) is still my favorite piece in class 5. On the other hand, the SuperBishop (Dragon Horse) is my favorite piece in class 3. Half the fun of the game comes from players holding fundamentally different opinions and fighting for those opinions on the chessboard. Perhaps we will meet over the board after this tournament ends.
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Draw in an intense game plenty of good moves, but also with an incredible lot of blunders by both bands...
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
<p>Fergus,</p> <p>It looks like we're in agreement regarding the text of the rules. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of treating the ZRF as a source on equal footing with the human-language text.</p> <p>First of all, Zillions of Games is proprietary software which only runs on Microsoft Windows and costs more money than I'm willing to pay for it. I don't have a copy, I don't intend to buy one, and I don't think tournament players should be expected to buy Zillions in order to know the rules of the games in the tournament.</p> <p>In order to determine what rules the ZRF enforces, I would have to do one of the following: either (1) purchase Zillions of Games, download the Rococo ZRF, and spend many hours setting up every situation I could think of in which a question could arise; or (2) learn the programming language used for ZRFs, download the Rococo ZRF, and spend many hours analyzing its source code to see how it would handle each situation I could think of in which a question could arise. In both cases, I couldn't be sure that I hadn't missed an important situation, and in the second case I couldn't be sure that my analysis was correct.</p> <p>It would have made sense for me to attempt one of these two things only if I had thought that the text of the rules was unclear. And if I had thought that, I would simply have asked a question on the Rococo comment board. As it happens, I remember thinking about the issue of capture along an edge before the game began, and after reading the text carefully, I thought that I understood the rule and that no other interpretation was possible.</p> <p>Now, today I have looked at the ZRF, and while I don't have the knowledge necessary to analyze the code, I see that it contains the following text as part of the game description [emphasis mine]: <blockquote>The outer ring of squares on the board may only be entered when required by a capture. Moves within the outer ring are only allowed when capturing as well, <b>and then as few squares as necessary</b>. Thus, a piece on the outer ring may only move to capture or to leave the outer ring.</blockquote> The phrase in bold makes the rule clear.</p> <p>In summary, I don't like the idea that I should have been expected to check the ZRF, but I must admit that the information was there to be found if I had checked it. Thus, if it is the opinion of the court that I should have checked it, then I guess I don't have much of a case.</p>
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
<P>Thomas,</P> <P>For the sake of reference, I will first include a link to the original text of the rules.</P> <P>http://web.archive.org/web/20041021104951/http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/rococo.html</P> <P>This copy of the text comes from October 21, 2004, and it is stored on the Archive.org website.</P> <P>I will now compare relevant passages of text from the old copy and from the revised copy:</P> <P>The original description of the Long Leaper says, 'It may end its move on an edge square only when that is the only way to make a particular capture.' And the description in revised text says, 'It may end its move on an edge square only when that is the only way to make a particular capture.' This text has not changed, and taken by itself, it seems more in line with your position.</P> <P>In the original version, the general description of the rules says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> The 36 outer squares of the 10 x 10 Rococo board are marked in the diagram below. These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only end on an edge square if necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares.' </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Here is what the revised passage says. I have underlined and highlighted all additions.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> The 36 outer squares of the 10 x 10 Rococo board are marked in the diagram below. These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>pass over or</U> end on an edge square if <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>it is</U> necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares. <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>Also, only the mininal number of edge squares may be passed over in order for the capture to occur, thus a Long Leaper on <B>x9</B> could capture an opposing piece on <B>x2</B> by landing on <B>x1</B> (assuming <B>x8-x3</B> were empty), but may not capture an opposing piece on <B>x2</B> by landing on <B>x0</B>. (<I>This is a clarification of the original rules which failed unambiguously to define the appropriate behavior in this case.</I>) Moves that captures multiple opposing pieces are not forbidden by edge squares -- the piece may move over as many edge squares as required for the capture. While a capture must be performed crossing as few as possible edge squares, when there is a choice among multiple possible captures, there is no requirement to choose the capture that crosses the fewist possible edge squares.</U> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Peter also adds a formal description, which I will skip here. According to what Peter says above, this is a clarification of the original rules and not a revision to them. But this is not obvious. For one thing, the only thing in the original text that leads to the interpretation that the Long Leaper move was illegal is the use of the definite article in one sentence that begins with the phrase 'in other words.' Furthermore, the original statement of the rules, as so interpreted, leads to paradox, as already described. The paradox is averted by adding the text 'pass over or,' as underlined and highlighted in the above passage. Taking the original text as written and assuming that a paradoxical interpretation would be wrong, we are left with your interpretation, which coincides with the interpretation Antoine used when writing the preset.</P> <P>But the original text is not the only resource we have. There is also the ZRF, coded by Peter Aronson, one of the game's inventors. Since a ZRF requires a mathematically precise description of the rules, it may sometimes end up being more precise and accurate than the natural language description. When there is a discrepancy between the two, a judgement call has to be made over which is accurate. When the text description and the ZRF were both written by the same person, and that person is a creator of the game, he is naturally the most qualified person to make a ruling on the matter. Peter Aronson wrote both and is co-creator of this game, and he has previously indicated that the ZRF described the rules accurately, and that in the ZRF, the Long Leaper move in question would be illegal.</P> <P>Anyhow, I have not examined the ZRF. But it appears to me that the best way to justify Peter's additions as clarifications and not revisions is to show that they correspond with how the ZRF enforces the rules. If they do match, and Peter stands by the ZRF description as the most accurate description of his original vision for the game, then it will stand that the move was illegal. Other than that, the only way to claim clarification is to assume that the original description seemed paradoxical only because it incompletely described the rules, and what Peter has added is just what must be in the rules to avoid the paradox.</P>
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
<p>Fergus,</p> <p>I guess I assumed that you were reading the kibitz section for this game, since you replied promptly to my question on April 6, and since I thought the issue should be considered unresolved as long as the game was not progressing. Under this assumption, your silence seemed perplexing and aggravating, especially since my time was steadily trickling away. But my assumption was not justified, and I had no way of knowing whether it was true. So for my unpleasant comments based on this assumption, I apologize.</p> <p>I thank you for the more complete explanation of your position, but I still disagree with some parts of it. I hope we can discuss them without rancor; I will try to do so, for my part.</p> <p>I will respond point by point:</p> <hr><blockquote>First, you should follow the rules of the game. This is given in the rules of the tournament.</blockquote> <p>Agreed, provided 'the rules of the game' means the rules specified by the text that was available to the players at the start of the game. (For the sake of brevity, I will refer to this text as 'the original text'.) I consider this a matter of common sense.</p> <hr><blockquote>Second, when there is a question on the interpretation of the rules, the ultimate authority on this matter is the creator(s) of the game. This is a matter of common sense.</blockquote> <p>I can accept this (with some reservations based on unlikely hypothetical situations). If, after I had a chance to explain my thoughts, Peter and David both gave the same interpretation of the original text, I would defer to them.</p> <hr><blockquote>David and Peter, the creators of Rococo, were both consulted on this matter, and they both ruled that the move in question was illegal.</blockquote> <p>I disagree, if the relevant rules are those available at the start of the game. David's interpretation was indeed based on the original text, but Peter's was not. The crucial phrases 'or passing over' and 'that particular edge square' did not appear until Peter's first post to the Rococo comment board on March 29. And in his second post that day, he said: <blockquote>However, that's not what I actually wrote when I wrote down the rules, so I can see why the rules would be intrepreted to allow captures by LL and W (and sometimes C) that start on edge squares to choose among multiple edge squares for their landing square.</blockquote> This sounds to me like an explicit acknowledgment that his interpretation is not the only possible interpretation of the original text, if not an endorsement of my interpretation.</p> <p>There's another important issue here that keeps falling through the cracks of the discussion. It is not sufficient to determine whether my move was legal or illegal. At least four interpretations of the original text have been proposed; we must determine which of the four applies to this game, since it will govern both the move in question and possible future moves in similar positions farther down the game tree.</p> <p>It is therefore highly relevant that David and Peter did not give the same interpretation of the original text. David's interpretation does not allow 14. L x9-x1; Peter's does. Thus, even if I had accepted their posts as a definitive ruling that my move was illegal, I would not have been able to proceed with the game.</p> <hr><blockquote>Furthermore, their interpretation of the rules did fit the letter of the rules, and it is incorrect to say I based my decision 'on Peter's statement of the rules that he had wanted but had not written.' Peter's decision did fit the rules as written, and David had already made the same decision, also based on the letter of the rules, before Peter had even said anything on the matter.</blockquote> <p>David's interpretation was based on the letter of the rules, as you say, but it is questionable, because of the paradox first pointed out by Michael Nelson. David has not posted anything since then.</p> <p>I don't believe that Peter's decision fit the rules as written (what I'm now calling 'the original text'). I've explained my reasoning several times. If you believe it did fit the original text, can you explain why? If what I've said is wrong, can you point out my error?</p> <p>Neither David nor Peter has posted anything pertaining to the interpretation question since my first post to the Rococo comment board, dated March 30. Perhaps I don't have an unalienable right to have my thoughts taken into account, but it seems reasonable for those in a position of authority to listen to all sides before passing judgment.</p> <hr><blockquote>There has been no revision to the rules during the course of the tournament; there has only been a clarification.</blockquote> <p>Whether there has been a revision to the rules is just what we are debating. There has at least been a revision to the <i>text</i> of the rules, which is what I meant when I used the word 'revision'. If the new text is equivalent to the original text, as you claim, then the revision of the text amounts to a clarification of the rules; if they are not equivalent, as I claim, then there has been a revision of the rules.</p>
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Thomas, Your recent comments here are nasty, ill-conceived, and out of line. My position is simple and straightforward. First, you should follow the rules of the game. This is given in the rules of the tournament. Second, when there is a question on the interpretation of the rules, the ultimate authority on this matter is the creator(s) of the game. This is a matter of common sense. David and Peter, the creators of Rococo, were both consulted on this matter, and they both ruled that the move in question was illegal. Furthermore, their interpretation of the rules did fit the letter of the rules, and it is incorrect to say I based my decision 'on Peter's statement of the rules that he had wanted but had not written.' Peter's decision did fit the rules as written, and David had already made the same decision, also based on the letter of the rules, before Peter had even said anything on the matter. There has been no revision to the rules during the course of the tournament; there has only been a clarification. As for my alleged silence on this matter, I did not see you recent comments until just now. I have not yet made it part of my routine to check the Kibbitz comments everyday.
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Still disappointed but no longer surprised by Fergus's silence, and under duress due to the depletion of my time, I have retracted my legal move (14. L x9-x0). I maintain my belief that this move is legal, and that once made it may not be retracted under the rules of the tournament. Nevertheless I have been forced to do so. If I do not win this game, I will request a complete and impartial review of this fiasco, and I believe that Michael Madsen is also entitled to such a review if he does not win.
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: rlavieri2003-antoinefourriere-2005-67-759
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
White has now a slight material advantage after some risky moves, taking advantage on some weaknesses in the position of Black, and we are in this moment in a very complex end, all can still happen in this extremely deep game, but for the moment White position seems to be slightly better. The game has been really interesting and of very high quality to the present.
Game: Extinction Chess Log: rlavieri2003-hasurami-2005-80-056
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Thanks for playing, Hans!. This game is not easy to play. To be honest, all could happen in this game, I have not had great confidence in the result because my position was vulnerable too a few moves ago and I didn
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
<p>Nothing in the written rules of the tournament says that Fergus alone has authority to interpret the rules of all games (even when both players agree). Perhaps we are to assume he has such authority, since he is in charge of the administration of the tournament. But if so, there is an interesting conflict of interest, since he is also a player in the tournament.</p> <p>In my pre-tournament na
Michael Nelson Verified as Michael Nelson wrote on
Thomas, I believe your interpretation of the rules as written is the correct one, since it can't be the inventors' intent to create a paradox and the rules as written do so, as I myself pointed out. Therefor your move is 100% legal. However, I would urge you to retract your move: The competant authority has ruled it illegal, albeit incorrectly in our shared view. Said competant authority is neither Peter nor David, but Fergus, who is in charge of both Game Courier itself and this particular tournament, thus he has the authority to make this determination. The fact that he made his decision based on Peter's and David's is interesting but irrelevant to the legal issue. I have no experience in directing Chess/CV games but have extensive experience as a club level Bridge director. The laws of both games (and virtually all other games) are the same on this point--the director's decision is to be followed, even when it is wrong. You might indicate that your are retracting the move under protest and inquire about what your appeal rights (if any) may be if you do not win this game.
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
<p>Thanks for your comments, Greg. I'm glad that at least one other person has thought about this.</p> <p>I can kind of see where you're coming from, but it's not as clear as you say. I agree that 'the' and 'any' are different words, and that the difference is relevant to the meaning of the first sentence you quoted. But the sentence as written is logically problematic. If we give this sentence the highest weight as you propose, then the legality of capture on one square is defined by this sentence in terms of the legality of capture on another square, which is defined by the same sentence in terms of the legality of capture on the first square, et cetera ad infinitum. This sentence is self-referential, which in general can lead to paradoxes, and in this case does. This sentence at best is inconclusive regarding the question of legality of capture on any particular square, and at worst breaks the game.</p> <p>So since I can't make sense of that sentence, I look at the two other relevant statements in the rules. (All three of these statements ought to be, and at least seem to claim to be, equivalent. Perhaps one day there should be a debate concerning the merits of redundancy in rules of games.) Neither of the other two statements makes any reference to particular edge squares; they refer only to the act of landing on an edge square, giving the clear impression that one edge square is as good as another.</p> <p>As for the intent of making it hard to hide from Leapers on the edge, perhaps I should state for the record that hiding from the Black Chameleon played no role in my decision to move to x0. In order to get to the x-file to attack my Leaper (if it were on x1), the Chameleon would have to capture one of my pieces, the position prior to this capture being subject to multiple constraints if the Chameleon is to go to an edge square. In short, this will only happen if the two players cooperate to make it happen, and I at least have other plans. My reason for moving to x0 rather than x1 was quite simple: to attack the Swapper on h8.</p> <p>Of course, one can imagine other positions in which the capturing Leaper would have to worry about possible capture by an enemy Leaper or Chameleon, so the issue is relevant from a game-design standpoint. But it's not at all clear that allowing my Long Leaper to go to x0 (or in general, to any square other than the first beyond the victim) violates the intent of making it hard to hide from Long Leapers. It only seems that way when one is thinking only about a potential future capture <i>of</i> a Long Leaper by an enemy Long Leaper (or Chameleon). But we shouldn't ignore the fact that the rule in question is specifically that governing <i>the only means by which a Long Leaper can capture a piece on the edge</i>. So if we say that a Long Leaper capturing a piece on the edge should not have its choice of destination squares as it would in the interior of the board, we are in fact making it <i>easier</i> for the Long Leaper's victim (in this case also a Long Leaper; the present case is almost maximally confusing) to hide from a Long Leaper on the edge of the board. This seems contrary to the stated intention. (After writing this I've just noticed that Peter has further clarified his intention on the Rococo page.) <p>Having said all that, I still haven't completely ruled out the possibility that I'm crazy. I welcome comments (but not unsupported orders) from anyone.</p>
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: joejoyce-fergus-2005-66-184
Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce wrote on
Once you got my a and b pawns, you had a winning game. I didn't see how I could prevent you from queening a pawn and/or hanging onto my c pawn. My hope was my f, g, and h pawns, pinning your king where it wound up, and checkmating with the rook or a queened pawn. I didn't see how I could before you got a queen. You could clearly overpower my c pawn, leaving you with pawns on b and d, effectively unstoppable. Nice game.
Game: Hostage Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-9-654
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
At the point where you resigned, I was looking at some forced moves here--after 1. Kb4 (forced), ...d6-d5 (discovered check with bishop at f8)+ 2. (any drop), Bishop takes piece with check OR 2.Ka4, (P-P)*b5+ 3.Ka5 Qb6 mate. I thank you for the time and the game. I would be willing to try another of the same, or another variant if you wish. You are a pleasant opponent and I appreciate your playing.
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: joejoyce-fergus-2005-66-184
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
'Resign' with a capital R gave a syntax error because commands are case sensitive. My plan for this game was to exchange Rooks after you moved your back Pawn forward, and then to win the Pawn race with my passed Pawn. But if you were to refuse the Rook exchange, you might have had a fighting chance.
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
<p>Thomas, I completely agree with you that a ruling on your present situation should be based purely on the rules as written, as you were playing the game with those rules in mind. The 'deeper intent' of the inventor should not be relevant, except in-so-far as that intent is clearly stated in the rules.</p> <p>My opinion: I have read the rules multiple times now, carefully, with attention focused on the present question, and it would be my opinion that the move you made is illegal. There may be a tiny bit of ambiguity, but not much IMHO. I think that the language that specifically explains the ring board should be given the heaviest weight, and I think this sentence mostly clears it up:<blockquote>A piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square.</blockquote></p> <p>It has been argued that this is still vague, but I don't think so. The alternate interpretation that you cannot land on an edge square unless it is impossible to make the capture without landing on <i>any</i> edge square is a different statement, and that's just not how I read it. I would also point out in the Notes and Comments section of the Rococo page, the author discusses the intent behind the ring board:<blockquote>The edge squares were to avoid pieces being able to hide from Long Leapers around the edges.</blockquote>Allowing you to go all the way into the corner when it is not necessary allows you to hide from capture by Long Leapers better than otherwise, and that clearly violates the stated intension of the ring board.</p> <p>On a related matter, I find Fergus' comment puzzling and somewhat distressing. Fergus said:<blockquote>The last thing Peter said on this matter was 'the LL could leap to x1 to capture at x2, but not leap to x0 to capture at x2.' So take back the move and get on with your game.</blockquote>Fergus completely ignored the fact that Peter said that the rule was unclear, and he did not address any of Thomas' points. He just issued a very blunt command instead. I find it interesting that Fergus is willing to type out pages and pages of intelligent discourse with a certain symmetry-buff long after it was clear that the other party wasn't making and sense and no one else cared, but yet he can't be bothered to type more than two sentences slapping down Thomas McElmurry on an important tournament-related matter.</p>
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Actually, the last thing Peter said on the matter was that the 'rule' you quote was not clear in the game description. That was an understatement on his part; that 'rule', whether it was his original intention or not, appears nowhere in the game description. <p>I believe I made some valid points in my comments of 29 March, yet they have received no reply of any kind. If you disagree with what I said, it's only fair to explain how I'm wrong. <p>Let me try to be as clear as I can be. I cannot in good faith take the move back, because tournament rules forbid the taking back of a legal move, and I believe my move was legal. I cannot in good faith continue the game without taking the move back, because others claim it was illegal. Therefore my only option is to do nothing until one side can convince the other, or until we reach an impasse, at which point perhaps the universe will cease to exist.
Game: Bario Log: carlos-penswift-2005-96-123
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i forgot to remove your phantom pawn! the pawn on h4 shouldn't be there. i also forgot to put the captured pieces in the holding cell, which was the point of this...
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
The last thing Peter said on this matter was 'the LL could leap to x1 to capture at x2, but not leap to x0 to capture at x2.' So take back the move and get on with your game.
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
I don't mean to delay the game unduly, but the rules of the tournament require that we determine whether my last move was legal. There has been a week of silence following the initial flurry of discussion. I still believe the move was legal, but Fergus's last statement was that it must be taken back. Fergus, if you're listening, can you tell us your current position on the matter?
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: crazytom-mageofmaple-2005-66-189
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
[Comment deleted; it was intended for another game.]
Game: Kamikaze Mortal Shogi Log: mageofmaple-fergus-2005-89-723
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Greg, the problem was that the Motif Shogi set, which you are using, does not contain images for Kamikazes, because I designed it before the invention of this game, and the $pieces array, which gets set in the set file, is what is used for identifying pieces in the game. So, the $pieces array did not include Z as a key, and that prevented Game Courier from recognizing the move Z*4e when it was your turn. To alleviate this problem, I have modified the set file for the Motif Shogi pieces to use its promoted Pawn images for Kamikazes.
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
I cannot move in this game. I get the error: Syntax Error on line 185. Z*4e is not a valid expression, because Z*4e is not a recognized piece, coordinate, command, or subroutine.
Game: Hostage Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-9-654
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
What is life like for you there in South Korea? Here in Georgia, I do a lot of running around with teaching and working; I like to go to concerts and enjoy music. I play a bit of bocce (I just got a new set) and I like to hang around my family. My brother's kids take up a good bit of my mental landscape also. How about you?
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
<p>I think only Michael can take the move back, since I took the liberty of making it again. Perhaps I shouldn't've done that, since it now appears that things are substantially less clear than I had thought. In any case, Michael should take the move back again; I think it's reasonable that it should be my clock ticking while we resolve the question. <p>I actually see three separate questions here: <p>1) What did Peter and David intend when they invented Rococo? <p>2) What is the correct interpretation of the rules as they were actually written when this particular game began? <p>3) If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are different, which should apply to this tournament game? <p>I think questions 1 and 2 should be answered on the Rococo page's comment board, while question 3 should be answered within the context of this tournament. <p>As for question 3, I think that this game should be governed by the rules as written, if a consensus can be reached regarding the answer to question 2. After all, my strategy in this game has been based on my understanding of the rules that I read, and the same is probably true for Michael. <p>On the Rococo comment board, David has said that my move is illegal, but his interpretation is paradoxical. Peter has said that my move should be forbidden by the intended rules, but has admitted that what was written is somewhat different. I don't think either of them has given a definite answer to question 2, and as I said above I don't think that the answer to question 1 should dictate tournament procedure.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
Peter Aronson and David Howe, the creators of this game, have both ruled that Thomas's 14th move is illegal. So he needs to take it back. Antoine should postpone fixing the preset until this is done, since it would otherwise break this game.
Game: Ca Log: mageofmaple-hasurami-2005-83-070
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Oops! Sorry, I forgot that the Queen was the royal piece. Also, I really don't blame Hans for having difficulty with this game; I also was very concerned about this game because I'm not that good at CVs anyway, and this game has 4 knight-riders, 4 dabbabah-alfil-riders, and 4 cannon-type pieces, all of which are extremely hard to visualize. I *did* vote for the inclusion of this game, because it looks like a really neat game which clearly deserves more study/play. I did not rank it in my top 12, however, because it is just so far beyond my level of skill. If Hans had offered a draw instead of resigning, I would have accepted.
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
I was just going to point out the same thing. It is sad to see that this game ended so early without any real effort to play it on Hans' part.
Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
You are right, the game is inherently violent, but this is the most bloody ('fatalities included', as in 'Mortal Kombat') Rococo game I have seen, it is like a war with massive destruction weapons.
Game: Ca Log: mageofmaple-hasurami-2005-83-070
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
I hope I'm not out of line for pointing this out....

Greg's second move (2. Lxf5) is not check, since the Black Queen is not attacked.

Game: Rococo Log: crazytom-lazyking-2005-67-764
Thomas McElmurry Verified as Thomas McElmurry wrote on
Yes, it has been quite bloody. This is my first game of Rococo, so I can't say for sure whether such violence is inherent in the game or whether it's just the way Michael and I have played. The edge squares make the Leapers quite a bit more powerful than in Ultima, and the Cannon Pawns behave very differently than Ultima's Pincer Pawns, although it seems that most of mine have been more like cannon fodder.
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
What a violence!. This game is a massacre, and all this on 13 moves, pieces die everywhere and everytime. I`m curious about the ends dynamics.
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: rlavieri2003-antoinefourriere-2005-67-759
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
In 23th., Black has material advantage after the Rook promotion, and it is now the dilemma of Pocket Mutation Chess: How to win if the other player decides a good defensive plan?. For a win, Black needs checkmate White, and for it, pieces are needed, but if pieces are used in attack, some weak points can appear, and counter-attacks are very possible. I
Game: Grand Chess Log: rlavieri2003-mageofmaple-2005-66-195
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Thank you for the game, Greg, and good luck in the rest, I expect you enjoy the Tournament, all of us can learn a lot with it. The clever was my Marshall, you missed a little its danger, but all was consequence of a few weaknesses you left in the opening. I have drawn other game, I
Game: Great Chess Log: andreas-carlos-2005-66-199
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
i tried to move in this game (c8-b10) and got this error message: This preset now uses the new code for identifying check, checkmate, and stalemate. Let me know of any problems with it.Syntax Error on line 393
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: rlavieri2003-antoinefourriere-2005-67-759
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
My 17th, B g5-p1 was a blunder, better was 17: P d4-p1, but all was consequence of my 12th. risky move and the following attacking also risky moves. Now Black can obtain material advantage by promotion, but it could be my Bishop, depending on my past moves. Definitely, my 12th. was an error, but very difficult to see, due the deepness of this game. Fourriere played correctly, almost all moves could conduct Black to be defeated, but he found out the right way. Nice game, Antoine!... Morality: Taking risks can be dangerous in this game, it is extremely deep and very difficult to see all the consequences of a risky move (and danger should be important if the other player is Antoine).
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Until move 12th, this game was well played, each player with his own strategy. Some of my next moves were very risky, and Antoine
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: carlos-rlavieri2003-2005-66-183
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Thanks to you, Carlos Carlos. This was an unfortunate setup, and we played it in such a way the game was finally blocked, perhaps it was not the intention, but we could not avoid it. I spent more than 40 minutes analyzing the position in my last move using a physical board, and it is clear that it is not possible forcing the game without great risks or conceeding material, so the game is going to be a draw in every case, in my particular opinion, once the game become more blocked than it is on 12th., position is so blocked that blunders are also difficult to be commited!. You played well, and I have only made defensive moves, without chances of nothing. Good luck nin the rest of the tournament, and enjoy your games!.
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
roberto, thanks for the game. after the last few moves i am happy to end it here. there doesn't seem like anywhere to go in a hurry from this position. we have both turned down chances to open the game up. good luck with the rest of the tournament.
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: mikenels-carlos-2005-67-757
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
thanks for the game, mike! it's a shame it didn't last longer. i guess it turned when you missed the potential for my ninth move. from this position i was planning to follow by moving the queen to h1 for another check, then mutating the queen into something stronger. this was only my second game of this, but it is obviously a very cool variant. i hope to play more games later on. good luck in the rest of the tournament.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-kron-2005-44-615
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Looks like mate to me - if this was a tournament game we might have to poll all the players for a decision. Congratulations Carlos!
Game: Pocket Mutation Chess Log: gwduke-fergus-2005-67-758
Fergus Duniho Verified as Fergus Duniho wrote on
George, are you going to move anytime soon? Your next move is forced. It should be 10. K e1-d2.
Game: Shogi Log: centaure-cvgameroom-2005-25-503
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Well, my vision is not the best, but in this game something is wrong or my eyes are worse than I supposed. What happened to Black King? (this piece is in hand by White, isn
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-david_64-2005-48-681
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Paulowich gambit (accepted)... Uuuhmmm, it sounds fine. We can begin giving names to some openings in different games, why not?, we are pioneers. I
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
1. d2-d4;-d2 <p>1... c7-c5; -c7 <p>2. d4-c5;-d4 <p>2... a8-c6; -a8 // is the Paulowich Gambit (accepted), threatening 3...Champion x Pawn and 4...c5-c4, with a discovered mate by the Black Wizard. Black gets a savage attack, which I ended up spoiling with a speculative double Wizard sacrifice. Carlos put up a great fight in the second game - all the way to a 58 ply stalemate, with only 6 squares left on the board.
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
anyone reading this log should note that the original game was quickly won by david in five moves!
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: carlos-rlavieri2003-2005-66-183
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Some random set-ups are extremely incomodious for one or both bands in this game. As an excellent example, see this extremely bizarre instance. I feel sick in each move, I have not idea about what is good here and what is not, and I think it is the same with my contrincant.
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-rlavieri2003-2005-44-871
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
White move 35 was a little mistake, but not a bad move necessarily, though. I considered Black move 34 as product of a wrong calculation, but the wrong am I, I can
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Despite neither castling and awkward middle game, Falcon Chess has come out of it finally with a good position now that 23 pieces remain. If there are trades, White's passed e-pawn could be decisive, or Black's h- and g-pawns advanced to 5th already. Without trades, since 4 Falcons remain, a Falcon check likely eventually will fork and take minor N or B, or even a Rook, and the game end that way.
Game: Hostage Chess Log: michaeljay-cvgameroom-2005-57-784
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
What is your site name at BrainKing? I play there also. I am Nasmichael there.
Game: Maxima Log: antoinefourriere-antoinefourriere-2005-22-537
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Black 41th, r g3-h4 was decisive, an excellent and not so easy to see move, I had to resign because I can
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Black has material advantage in the end: Three Pawns, Coordinator and Long-Leaper against Guard and Long-Leaper, and an attack position. Nevertheless, it does not seem easy the victory for Black, and the reason is based on the Guard position, close to the Black Palace in a strong defensive attitude. I think Black must win, but I
Game: Falcon Chess Log: gwduke-rlavieri2003-2005-44-871
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
How not to play Falcon Chess: White has 4 pawn islands, and Black 3 or 4 too. Yet there was logic each step, no real blunders. White is up four piece-points. It finally appears Black will not castle either. All Falcons remain, so win will come from a fork and grab of a piece.
Game: Hostage Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-9-654
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
I hope all is well with you--I await your next move.
Game: Omega Chess Log: michaeljay-cvgameroom-2005-32-111
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
Oops. I must still be asleep.
Game: Grand Chess Log: oncljan-cvgameroom-2005-49-839
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
17... r j10-f10 was not good, it was better r a10-d10, but I think White has positional advantage, regardless the material.
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2004-354-179
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
The suggested 18...K-d6; Q-f4+ was the move I expected in the game, but as David pointed out, it is not clear the end. After the suggested move, Black mantains some chances of a victory, but White too!. I think Black could try to find a zugzwang position, I visualized some possibilities, but by this reason it would be far from easy for Black, I would be very attempt on my moves. My particular opinion is that, after the suggested 18, the end is still a draw, if both teams play at a good level and without blunders.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Andreas: I traded down to a 'safe' endgame. I still cannot decide who has the advantage after moves like <p>18...K-d6; Q-f4+ <p>19.N-f3; R-h2 <p>19...Q-g4-g6+
Game: Grand Chess Log: oncljan-cvgameroom-2005-49-839
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Complex. Nice.
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2004-354-179
Andreas Kaufmann Verified as Andreas Kaufmann wrote on
Very interesting game! Probably black shouldn't exchange Q vs R+N on 18th move. I think better would be 18.... Ke7-d6; Qg4-f4+. Certainly, it would be quite difficult for black to win.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-37-104
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
4.d1-b3; -d1 was my original plan, before I discovered a way to lose lots of material. After that, I concentrated on looking for any possible checkmates on the board. That has been working for me here - more often than it should!
Game: Hostage Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-9-654
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
I just need you to resend the move, making sure the piece captured is a black knight instead of the pawn. I can not correct it in the text.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: kron-cvgameroom-2005-27-567
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Looks like checkmate to me. Congratulations Carlos!
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
oops, sorry. i just moved my champion diagonally. that's illegal. go back and make your previous move again and i'll do something different.
Game: Shogi Log: centaure-cvgameroom-2005-16-614
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2004-359-596
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
yup, good game. every game i've played so far has been like this - you never seem to be without a chance in this variant.
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2005-9-652
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'A player in check must remove the check in the first half of his turn.' <p>Black's move 10 is illegal.
Game: Grotesque Chess Log: fergus-cvgameroom-2004-336-182
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Congratulations Andreas! One comment: <p>After 42.N f4-d5+ k c7-b7? 43.b4-b5! traps the Black Queen. Which illustrates the old adage: 'When you see a good move on the board, always look for a better one.'
Game: Shogi Log: takodori-cvgameroom-2005-4-076
Manabu Terao Verified as Manabu Terao wrote on
My 45.N*2d was a bad move. It should have been Rx6i instead. If you took my N on 2d by Sx2d instead of 46.S*1b, you should have won the game because there was a mate line to begin with B*4g and you could respond to my Rx2d by L*2c which would be also threatmate to be followed by B*4g. Overall, your attack was very good. And giving up your R on 6a was a nice judgement. Only one thing you should learn from this game is that castling your King is important before attack.
Game: Altair Log: gwduke-rlavieri-2004-347-983
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Thanks for playing Altair, George... Yes, I
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Actually the Checks will end. Instead: 44 c3-g3 h4-f6 45 g9-e6* f6-e7 .... One more piece for Black and the Reducer well-positioned does it. Thanks again. Just think, no one else would even understand those above moves, at least immediately.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
Right, Roberto, you probably forgot a minute your own 'Kings not in line of sight'. I was planning i3-i6, but Black has continuous checks now. Thanks. Altair's a great game, and it gave me the idea for last week's 3D Positional Chess, where Altair credited. I am waiting for those 3D-Falcon games Quintanilla is making presets. I hope you will play-test 8x8x2 Falcon in GC.
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
This move: 44.- P c3-g3 saves White!. It was a very nice game with a tense end, but I have resigned without an exhaustive verification. After P c3-g3, Black has e g1-h2 Check, etc. and draw by perpetual check, if not, Black is going to be checkmated in four moves...
Game: Pairwise Drop Chess Log: david_64-mageofmaple-2004-344-071
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

You start a game of Pairwise Drop Chess by choosing one of five pairs: RR, NN, BB, KQ, AM and placing the two pieces on your first rank. Bishops must be placed on opposite color squares. Each player must also copy the opponent's drops, placing pieces on the same files. This process uses up the first three moves of the game.

Each king may 'free castle' once in the game with either the nearest rook on its left side or the nearest rook on its right side. This variant idea comes from the Kibitzer article 'Bring Back Free Castling!' by Tim Harding. A Pawn promotes on the last rank to a Marshal/Chancellor, Queen, or Archbishop/Cardinal of the same color. Nothing else.

Game: Shogi Log: michaeljay-cvgameroom-2005-10-354
Nasmichael Farris Verified as Nasmichael Farris wrote on
Thank you for accepting the challenge. Shogi is a new game to me; I am intrigued by the possibilities of the 'drop chess' style. Have you played many games before?
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: mabelod-sagig72-2004-355-927
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Hi Sagi & Eyal, If you like playing Fischerandom Chess, I invite you to join the Fischerandom Chess email Club! Visit our webpage at: http://frcec.tripod.com To subscribe, send an email to: [email protected] Cheers! Jose Carrillo FRCEC Moderator
Game: Fischer Random Chess Log: oncljan-cvgameroom-2004-359-904
Jose Carrillo Verified as Jose Carrillo wrote on
Hi Taurus & Jean, If you like playing Fischerandom Chess, I invite you to join the Fischerandom Chess email Club! Visit our webpage at: http://frcec.tripod.com To subscribe, send an email to: [email protected] Cheers! Jose Carrillo FRCEC Moderator
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2005-1-083
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Marsellais Chess is extremely violent!. It is difficult reach move 20th. My game against David Paulowich may be considered a marathon, but we played only a few moves after the 20th!. Interesting the ongoing game Leyva-Strong. Very nice to see and analyze...
Game: Chess Log: sagig72-david_64-2005-4-268
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Sorry, but I am cutting back on my internet games this month.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-david_64-2005-4-138
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Sorry, but I am cutting back on my internet games this month. <p>Note: I added a comment to your current Wormhole game concerning an illegal 4th move by Black.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-cvgameroom-2004-359-596
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
ILLEGAL MOVE 4... g8-f6 <p>The only legal moves for that knight involve skipping over 'blue squares.' The paths traced out are: <p>g8-g6-h5 and g8-f8-d6
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-david_64-2004-354-661
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Once again I had to 'CHECKMATE' you twice to win the game! If you had played Champion takes Knight, then your King would have an escape square on e7. In that case my plan was to sacrifice all my 'Queenside' pieces and try for a stalemate after: <p>... Black Pawn-f4 <p>White PxP <p>... Black King-g4.
Game: Shogi Log: zeev_shapiro-cvgameroom-2004-351-879
Manabu Terao Verified as Manabu Terao wrote on
Thanks for the game. If you captured my pawn by Px2d instead of 42:Gx6f, then it shoud have been uncertain which to win. After 42:Px2d, one variation would have been as follows; 42: Px2d P*2g 43: S*2c Gx2c 44: Px2c+ Kx2c 45: Rx2g K3b 46: G*2c then I had 3 choices to escape my King to 3a, 4a or 4b. It should have been very difficult to read through up to the end.
Game: Shogi Log: takodori-cvgameroom-2004-332-605
Manabu Terao Verified as Manabu Terao wrote on
Thanks for the game. Instead of 12;S-6d, R-7b should have been better. S-6d is a good move when my left silver goes to 6g.
Game: Maxima Log: penswift-rlavieri2003-2004-334-966
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Having entered the moves through the Move command, it seems 14. b4-b5 captures the Guard on c5. I don't know what happened. I will be back in one or two weeks.
Game: Jumping Chess Log: mageofmaple-cvgameroom-2005-1-097
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
ok, you are right. i had only looked at the brief description below the board for rules instead of going to the actual rules page.
Game: Fugue Log: mikenels-rlavieri2003-2004-352-393
Michael Nelson Verified as Michael Nelson wrote on
Roberto, you played a fine game and I'm rather surprised at the outcome (though pleased!) Thank you ofr a good game. In retrospect, the opening error proved decisive. The loss of two pawns was made up, but his position became very cramped. Ironically in view of our last game, Roberto might have done better allowing the exchange of my Pushme-Pullyu for his Shield. It is an open question how much material advantage I would have gained. My own belief is the it pays to trade a Queen or PP for a Shield or Immobilizer if you have adequate offense without the piece, but not if it leaves you on the defensive. The game showed off the Archer and the technique of seting up spotters for long shots. Also of note was a horrific threat from my Swapper, properly countered--a mistake here would have ended the game then and there. My hope is that these games will show Fugue as an excellent, deep game in its own right--neither Ultima nor Rococco but a third thing with a beauty and grace all its own.
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2004-354-179
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Great game!, I have enjoyed it a lot, and it was a good learning for both players. Two Pawns against one is not necessarily a forced win in this game, as it is in FIDE-Chess, it depends strongly on the structure of Pawns. I
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
Pawns end. Black two Pawns, one in column a, other in c. White one pawn in column a. Is it a forced win?. I don
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
White has Queen and two Pawns, Black has Rook, Knight and one Pawn, after simplifications. Logic says that White has the main chance to win the game, I think this may be the result, but I don
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Roberto was thinking about playing 16. Kf1; Rh5. In that case I was planning to advance my passed pawn with 16... c7-c5-c4. White is better off attacking with the Rook and Knight, as he did in the game.
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
This game has been very interesting. David surprised me with a very good move in 8th. turn (!!) which I have not expected, and my response was a move conducting to an exchange of my Queen by Rook-Bishop, because I have not seen another best in that moment, preserving my Queen was an option which I discarded because my position could fall down quickly. My posterior analysis has shown to me that my selected move was absolutely correct, perhaps the only move to preserve certain chances (!?). We are now in a very difficult end (Queen vs. Rook-Knight and three Pawns per band) in which all can still happen, but by the moment Black preserves an important tempo advantage, nevertheless, pieces can
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-david_64-2004-354-661
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
There is no checkmate! White still has 'Pawn takes Lion'. I made a wallpaper diagram of the board position after the Lion check - had my supper - and took a last look at the diagram before making my move.
Game: Marseillais Chess Log: rlavieri2003-cvgameroom-2004-354-179
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
Season's Greetings! I will return to my games here around 0800 Dec. 26.
Game: Wormhole Chess Log: carlos-david_64-2004-338-647
carlos carlos Verified as carlos carlos wrote on
and i've forgotten to wormhole a square again... g8 should be blank.
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on
'Checkmate Confusion' has started on move three! This would be a good time to point out that our previous game of Wormhole Chess actually ended in a victory for Carlos. See the COMMENTS section for the remaining moves of that game.
Game: Pairwise Drop Chess Log: david_64-mageofmaple-2004-337-027
David Paulowich Verified as David Paulowich wrote on

After 11... Kd6 12. Ac5+ Kc6 13. Ma5+ Kd5 14. Nc3 checkmate

all the active White pieces are on dark squares. This is the secret to bypassing Black's strong grip on the light squares. A similar mating attack also works against 10... d7-d6. The position after 10. Af5 is extremely complicated - I had a reply to 10... Md6, but I forget what it was! Certainly not 11. Axi8? Bh7! 12. Axh7 Axh7 and Black still has a small material advantage.

Game: Rococo Log: tony_quintanilla-gwduke-2004-336-229
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
4... p b7-c6 seems good for Black. At this point, White seems to be slightly better positioned, but the game is still in the first moves.
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
White choices for Move 4 include: A. d2-c3, making Pawns cluster like Lavieri says. Pawns could then double step to any of a4, b4, c4, d4,depending on Black's response. Mostly it begins to confront LL on f6. B. 'LL f1-d3 Check' looks good too.
Tony Quintanilla Verified as Tony Quintanilla wrote on
3...l f8-f6 mostly to defend from 4. A g1-g5, taking Pawn, as well as to develop the Long-Leaper. Zillions seems to agree with me here. It would respond with 4. L g1-g4, threatening Black's Long-Leaper, an interesting move willing to trade the Advancer for the Long-Leaper.
Game: Anti-King Chess II Log: mageofmaple-tony_quintanilla-2004-336-980
Greg Strong Verified as Greg Strong wrote on
Actually, I was planning on moving my anti-king to c3, so putting the pawn there is probably a really good move. I think I want to keep the king ahead of the pawns. I'm not sure whether I should move the anti-king now, (probably to d4) or not. If I do not, I will be forced to do so next move when Tony develops the bishop. Otherwise, I'd probably play p e7-e6, or g7-g6.
Tony Quintanilla Verified as Tony Quintanilla wrote on
Larry's idea for protecting the anti-king in the end game is interesting. <p>Roberto makes an interesting observation that the strategy with respect to material is not maximization, like in chess, but optimization, which is actually a balance, depending on the position. Antoine's reply that material is always an advantage because it provides more options is very keen. However, Roberto's observation that a well placed sacrifice can lead to an anti-checkmate combination seems accurate. <p>Roberto's observation about a strategic decision to keep the AK either in front or behind the opponent's Pawns is important. Antoine's suggestions for forcing this decision without exposing one's King is the start for AK Chess opening theory, it seems. At first thought, I would be inclined to keep the AK in front of the Pawns, since this would seem to provide more options in the middle game, although harder to maintain in the opening. <p>Based on these interesting comments, it seems that 3. P c2-c3 may be a good move, with the objective of forcing a decision on the AK's strategy. Of course, e3 is available, as Antoine observes. Another advantage of this move it that it prevents the advance of Black's Knight to b4 and d4. It also would support a future, P d2-d4. It also maintains an open diagonal for the King's Bishop. <p>This move, however, delays development of the pieces. But, as Roberto observes, material advantage is always a balance in this game. <p>Zillions is undecided about the next move, with some preference for 3. c4. This would seem to force the AK to decide to either retreat or remain behind the Pawns. I think that Antoine's 3. c3 is superior. <p> <p>
Roberto Lavieri Verified as Roberto Lavieri wrote on
I insist, excess or default of material is good or not depending on position, it is not an unique logic here, as in Chess. In some situations, you may be winning precisely by the high material disadvantage. I
Antoine Fourrière Verified as Antoine Fourrière wrote on
Material is still a positive factor. Of course you can't give your Queen for nothing, but you will also (nearly) always be able to put your Bishops quickly out of reach of the Anti-King, so there is no reason to discard them prematurely. True, a buried Rook may be a greater liability, but if you keep a Knight cavorting near an unmoved Rook to and from its own starting square, you should often be able to give perpetual check even in an otherwise losing situation, and I feel there should be a higher percentage of draws at AKC II than in many variants. There is also the possibility that two Pawns block each other, with the two Anti-Kings facing each other now protected once and for all. Now the game will end purely as Chess. To sum it up, Anti-King Chess is not Othello. More material gives you more options, not less options. As for openings, I think I prefer 1.e3, 2.c3 and 3.Ke2 for White. It forces the Black Anti-King to choose early on which side of the White Pawns it will hav eto remain. 1.e4, 2.c4 and 3.Ke2 would do that too, but it gives the Anti-King the option to go to c3. 1.e3, 2.c3 and 3.Ke2 also avoids contact with the Black Pawns, hence it buys more time to strangle the Black Anti-King before the White King gets in real danger.
Game: Rococo Log: tony_quintanilla-gwduke-2004-336-229
George Duke Verified as George Duke wrote on
At Move 3:There are no immediate threats like last turn's B.Advancer to b3, capturing a-pawn. I like g2-e4, opening W.Advancer and disclosed possibilities for W.Swapper. And welcome any suggestions before moving in an hour. g2-e4 also carries awareness Lavieri cites of having active pawns as these Cannons are almost of piece value. I could have worded Move 2 Comment better and clarify later with [Brackets]. It's actually White Advancer that now threatens to come out after Move 3.
Tony Quintanilla Verified as Tony Quintanilla wrote on
Opening the Advancer diagonal was intended primarily to develop the advancer and the Long-Leaper not attack the a-file Pawn. Why would this be bringing it out early? <p>I am considering, 2... p b7-a6. The purpose would be to develop the Immobilizer diagonal and the b-file for the Withdrawer. Another purpose would be to begin to defend against the advance of White's Immobilizer. <p>Another option is 2... p d7-d6. This opens the diagonals for the Chameleon and Long Leaper. It also beings to defend against the Immobilizer. <p>The alternative w