Comments by GerdDegens
I think that the table diagrams I use show the morphing possibilities quite well. But I readily admit that there can be different forms of presentation. I have opted for these and would welcome it if it could stay that way.
Morphomania. Morphing wherever you look. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have made changes and hope that it fits now.
You're quite right - I'm guessing at what you mean. I am therefore grateful for your offer to change the page as you mean it. Sorry you have the work now, wasn't my intention.
Rook. Moves across unobstructed orthogonal line.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Somehow I'm not getting anywhere with my suggestions - 'Morphomania' excluded. Perhaps everything is within the bounds of norm.
Morphomania. Morphing wherever you look. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I can understand the changes/restructuring you have made. I am confident that a human player will be able to cope with the current description of the game. Incidentally, I think we have already spent enough time making changes, so I kindly ask you to publish the current status. Thank you for your efforts.
NIHISCI. No Idea How I Should Call It. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Note also that both this game and Snappy Ch. label the Dragon King's diagonal step incorrectly as a Wazir rather than a Ferz
You observed this very carefully; thank you for noticing my lapse. I have of course changed it in both proposals.
I must admit I'm still a bit torn about the name of this one; the acronym is oddly pleasingly pronounceable, but I'm quite wary of this kind of ‘name‐without‐naming’ —
Please forgive me for saying that your comment is of a rather academic nature. With so many names of published games that have no relation to the game, mine is more likely to have a chance of recognition. You may not like it, but my naming is still original - isn't it ;-)?
CC Top. 
Column Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]... it's more‐or‐less clear from context what you mean but since that word has an established technical meaning (being unable to leave a region as a consequence of one's move, as of e.g. a Bishop) it'd be clearer to avoid it entirely.
You go much deeper into the details than I am allowed to. I am interested in the idea and perhaps a little less in the formulation of the description.
I'd like to adapt to you, but I'm afraid that we'll end up in discussions like we had with 'Morphomania'.
The game was played in 'Game Courier' without any problems. From this I conclude that the other players have understood the game. That's what it should be - right?
Of course, serious errors should be eliminated.
Snappy Chess. Members-Only A nimble affair thanks to morphing. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Spider-Chess. Beware of spiders. (25x19, Cells: 369) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]After looking at the alphabetical index, I could not find a name conflict, so I chose this name.
As far as the textual description of the spider is concerned, I have added it - I hope I have done it well.
CC Top. Column Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Note that a piece that moves as the piece in the FIDE setup that started on the file it is currently on is known as a Querquisite, and that the pieces used here are very much related to this. So it might be good to refer to this, for better historical context.
You show once again that you understand much more about chess and its historical context. 'Querquisite' means nothing to me. If you had a formula to establish the historical context, I would be grateful.
This is basically just a sub-variant of Avatar Chess on a 9x9 board, with different, more regular assignment of the morph targets to the squares. The only 'novelty' is that there are now also some squares where pieces don't morph.
You might be right. Avatar Chess can be seen as a top variant in terms of morphing. Then all other variations that deal with morphing are sub-variants. And all the squares that are not morphed are an 'novelty' compared to Avatar Chess.
But we are dealing with variations that offer move variations that deviate from standard chess.
In addition, all variants that deal with morphing would be superfluous - provided the benchmark is Avatar Chess. That would be nice.
That's why variants with different morphing activities have their raison d'être - at least in my opinion.
Snappy Chess. Members-Only A nimble affair thanks to morphing. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
CC Top. Column Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have tried to clarify the description.
Bull's eye. Upgrading of the possibilities to move within the Bull's eye to make the game more dynamic. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hi HaruN Y,
I can't see what your variants have to do with my idea of the bull's eye, which concern the central squares d4, d5, e4 and e5 and where the pieces are given move possibilities corresponding to those of the queen and knight in combination.
Otherwise, I think the possibility of offering various variants in one diagram is very effective.
Okay, HaruN Y seems to have no problem with such a representation, which seems efficient. But we should be careful not to use this as a yardstick! Because then we can stamp 99 percent or something on new variants and no one will post anymore.
Of course, I mean variants that build on each other. They are then obsolete.
Little Rider Reef. Overcome the reef. (11x11, Cells: 110) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Avatar Riff Riders. Overcome the reef on an Avatar basis. (11x11, Cells: 110) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, of course. A chancellorrider cannot pass the barrier on the same file. Applies to the cardinalrider and amazonrider in the same way with regard to diagonal movement.
Why put the same image there three times?
Which image three times?
OK.
The first is the setup, which can't be superfluous.
The second shows 'Play It!'; what's superfluous about that?
The third shows Game Courier as a picture. My way of pointing this out. Can be turned into a gray mouse by inserting a simple sentence, e.g. 'play it on Game Courier'.
OK.
Well, you have to say what is part of a complete presentation.
Can the setup be omitted if the 'Play it' item follows under 'Notes'? Mind you, under 'Notes', i.e. at the end of the presentation. That doesn't make sense, does it?
The setup is the opening for a reason. Everything that follows can be understood as a supplement that serves as further explanation.
Incidentally, we shouldn't think the reader is so stupid that he can't sort the information provided correctly.
A German saying goes: 'Doppelt hält besser' or twice is better than twice - it should be no different in English.
Okay, I've rearranged it.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
May I ask discreetly whether anything is still missing in terms of 'Morphomania' and 'Crossroads'?