Kibbitz Listing
wrote on This game was resigned from prematurely. Both sides had captured the same number of pieces, it was still in the mid-game without either side having a serious mating threat, and while my Bishop and Archbishop were probably better than a pair of Mameluks, the board was still too crowded for them to make a decisive difference.
wrote on For this particular game, it previously said that Bob Dixon had won. When I updated it to restore the position originally used in this game, it changed the winner to Peter Levya. This initially looked correct, because the last comment, which is by the winning Black player, appears to be signed by Peter. But the first two comments are by Peter playing White. My best guess is that the last comment is actually two comments, one from each player, since one line says "Thanks" and the next one says "thank you". In that case, Bob was playing Black and is the actual winner. So, I swapped the values of $player and $opponent in the log and reloaded the log to fix this.
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
Now to update for real.
That didn't work. I made the kibbitzid field visible.
1319 is the KibbitzID number. Will it change or remain the same when I try to update?
It worked after I set a value for $kibbitzid before writing the form.
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
Now to update for real.
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
Attempting to update for real, since it didn't use the game and log names the first time it created it, which made the first update an insertion.
That last update was also an insertion. This should be a real update now that I have given a value to $row["KibbitzID"] before posting.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
Attempting to update for real, since it didn't use the game and log names the first time it created it, which made the first update an insertion.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
wrote on I just made a terrible move, but that aside, it looked like such a great move that my opponent resigned.
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.
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.
wrote on Let's post one more test comment.
wrote on Another test comment.
wrote on 35. a8-a9 was illegal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on They appear fine to me.
wrote on Symmetry hasn't made this game any better than Chess. Altogether, it seems more awkward.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on It will work now. The wrong spaces were flagged at the start of the game, and that is now fixed.
wrote on There was another typo. It has now been fixed.
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.
wrote on There was a typo is the code for enforcing the rules. It is now fixed.
wrote on I just tried that move, and it worked.
wrote on Vitya,
You can now move your King. The bug in the Eurasian Chess preset is fixed.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on Okay, I reverted the log, Sam. It looks like you need to replay your move.
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.
wrote on It appears I stumbled into checkmate on my last move. I plan to update this preset to spot check, checkmate and stalemate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on White's 12th move is illegal. Fission cannot be used for capturing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on It's fixed now.
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.
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.
wrote on Okay, I think I've now fixed the problem.
wrote on I'll look into this when it's not so late.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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>
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>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wrote on George, are you going to move anytime soon? Your next move is forced. It should be 10. K e1-d2.
wrote on Judging by the name of the log, you set the time limits, carlos. After someone has run out of time, you're not supposed to continue.
wrote on You're right. I just confirmed it. You ran out of time.
wrote on What happened here? Did Carlos resign without mentioning it? No one is in check, much less checkmate.
wrote on Congratulations, Michael, you have won. Your last move was checkmate, not merely check. You had a mate-in-one on your last turn and missed it, and then Mark had the opportunity to prevent mate on this turn by taking your Bishop with his Rook, but he neglected to. Perhaps you both forgot some of the rules that make Eurasian Chess different from regular Chess. The King cannot cross the river, and Kings may not face each other across an open line. Since the King is on the edge of the river, it cannot move forward in any direction, and since your King commands the file on one side of Mark's King, it cannot move to that file.
wrote on There was a bug in the 'onboard' function of the polish notation calculator. It is now fixed, and you can promote your Pawn.
wrote on I previously entered an erroneous comment, and there is no facility for deleting kibbitizing comments.
wrote on I have now fixed the code to enforce the rules correctly.
wrote on Okay, I found a quotation from Parton that answers my question:
'When a player wishes to interpose a piece between his King checked and
the enemy checking, he may forget that his pieces on the same board as his
Kings are useless for such a purpose. For this intervention he must find
a piece on the other board able to move there legally and then transfer to
a position between the King and the checking enemy.'
This quotation implies the possibility of blocking a check by moving a
piece on the other board. Therefore, it should not count that the King is
temporarily left in check before the piece transfers. However, Parton does
point out that a King may not move to a space it is in check on, even when
the transfer would take it out of check. The same principle would apply to
moves that reveal checks on one's King. But these can be accounted for by
the usual checking for check at the end of the move, since the King would
not have moved. Therefore, it seems that checking for check before the
completion of a move is needed only when a player moves his King. So I
will fix the Alice Chess code to enforce this interpretation of the rules.
wrote on Has this game ended in checkmate at move 7? Or can White reply with 'R B1-B4'? As the rules have been encoded into Game Courier, there are no legal moves left for White. There seems to be an ambiguity in the rules, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. The rule in question says 'A move must be legal on the board it is played.' At present, Game Courier checks whether the King is in check before the completion of the transfer of a piece from one board to another, and if the King is in check then, it recognizes the move as illegal. So, when the Rook moves from B1 to B4, the King is still in check from the Bishop before the transfer to b4, and Game Courier interprets the move as illegal. But is that correct? One interpretation of the rule is that it requires a move to be legal only within a certain domain, namely on the board on which the move is made. In that case, a piece would have to begin its move on the same board as the King for it to matter whether the King is left in check before the completion of the move. Would that be the correct way to interpret the rule? Has this sort of situation ever come up before in discussions of Alice Chess? Has Parton ever addressed this ambiguity in the rules? Are there any recorded sample games that clear up the ambiguity one way or the other?
wrote on I guess I don't read Kibbitz comments as often as I read other comments. So I didn't see Roberto's question until now. I am reluctant to program any automatic deletion of logs. People sometimes do resume games after extended breaks. For example, Erez Schatz recently resumed some games with me after being without an internet connection for months. For now, I leave it to the discretion of individual players to delete logs of abandoned games.
wrote on I fixed the bug that was making this game look screwy.
wrote on As I was viewing this game, I was noticing that captured pieces along the sides were getting really screwed up. They would disappear, reappear, and have wrong orientations. I'm trying to debug this, but I'm not yet sure what's causing it. Let me ask Charles and lazyking the same question, and it will help my debugging if you will both answer. When you have been playing the game, have you noticed the same thing I have just described? And of anyone else reading this, have you noticed anything similar in other games, whether by viewing or playing them?
wrote on After 117 moves, this test game is finally over. It reminds me of that dumb sport that sometimes postpones some of the TV shows I watch because it takes so long to end a game. Well, this is what beta versions are for. I will be fixing some of the problems with this game in the next version. Overall, it is a fun game, and it's a lot more interesting game to play against yourself than other Chess variants are. By not looking at your new cards until your next turn, which is what I did, you are able to play against yourself without full knowledge of what cards are in your opponent's hand.
wrote on I'll keep those ideas in mind, but for the next version, I will be making the spells most useful for escaping checkmate more expensive. These seem to be possession and teleportation.
wrote on It seems a bit too easy to defend in this game. Both players have escaped near checkmate many times. White keeps escaping by moving to spaces he has cards for, so that he can escape again when he needs to, hopefully getting enough time to build some forces. It's a dynamic game, but maybe too dynamic. I should probably make it harder to defend.
wrote on This is the first completed test game of the beta version of my new game, Magic Chess. As you can see if you're looking at it, it is a Chess game that makes use of cards. After I finish my other test game with David Howe, I will upload the revised rules and add some new cards. Once new cards are added, it will alter the order of shuffled cards, and you will no longer be able to view this game unless I archive it somehow. In the meantime, have a look at this game. Now that it's over, you can see what cards each side has. During the course of an ongoing game, Game Courier hides cards from public view, but it lets you see all cards once a game is over.
wrote on Black's third move was illegal. You can't move your opponent's pieces, the Knight does not leap like that, and it isn't legal to put yourself in check. I expect you meant to move your own Knight at b8. The User's Guide explains how to take back moves.
wrote on White's eleventh move is illegal. A Bishop promotes to a Dragon Horse, not to a Dragon King.
wrote on White's tenth move is incomplete and should be taken back and repeated.
Read the User's Guide for details on how to do this. Whenever you capture
a piece, you should put it in hand. That's what the areas on the sides of
the board are for. White's tenth move should have looked something like
this:
B 2b-7g; N-Ca // Check!
wrote on When you write an inline comment in the Moves field, you should precede it with two slashes, //, not with a semicolon. The only reason that x-pawn did nothing is because pawn is not the name of any location on the board. If you had used a board location, you would have put a piece on the board.
wrote on I can guess what polyfacetic means from its roots, but it doesn't appear in the dictionary. The closest English word would be multifaceted.
wrote on I think that pointing out illegal moves is something kibbitzers should
always be allowed to do. After all, illegal moves are illegal, and Game
Courier does not have the ability to enforce legal moves, but it does have
the ability to take back any previous move.
What I think Kibbitzers should avoid unless especially invited to is to
offer suggestions about what moves players should make.
Between these two extremes, the area is a bit more grey. Use common sense.
The general rule would be that it's okay to act like a referee or umpire,
but it's usually not okay to act like a coach. Once a game is over, it
will then be okay to analyze the game and offer comments on what players
should have done.
wrote on Thanks for pointing out the illegal move. I went back and made a new move.
wrote on In retrospect, my move 28 was really a good one. It opened up a very strong line of attack on the enemy King, and although it cost me a Gold General and a Rook, it allowed me to quickly scoop up a Silver General and another Gold General, and the Bishop I got for the Rook also helped out very much in my attack on the King.