Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

It looks like almost nobody on this site seems to like maths. Whether you publish this chess variant or not, I will stop bothering you. One day, you will realise that this is the greatest and most challenging chess variant ever invented.

Actually, many of us here like math. If I remember correctly Fergus has a PhD in logic. I have a PhD in applied mathematics. And HG has just been invited to participate in the Physics Nobel prize decertation ceremony, I'm sure he is quite good, and that, leaving aside his programming skills. Here, we are maybe 100 people dealing with thousands of chess variants, many of them very good. There is so much we can play. To be honest I had not read well your article. It is a difficult Idea to grasp at a glance. I have published weird games too, and I have had even crazier ones. There are 8 people here who have favorited my two main games. And that is a lot here. So I'm not sure what your expectations are. But while you are here, as I see you have a Romanian name and I think you can help me a bit. I can't access these two sites: http://jocly.com/ https://talkchess.com/ I was told by a friend that probably they are not accessible from Romania. May you check if you can access them? Maybe I have a problem.

If I remember correctly Fergus has a PhD in logic.

Philosophy, which is the department that teaches logic courses.

Thanks. I checked the two sites and I can't access them either.

It looks like almost nobody on this site seems to like maths.

You forgot about Go and Rummy. I’ve never been good at Go, and all I know of Rummy is that it is a card game. As for math, I did well in the math classes I took, but I did not take many after high school, and I do not do math recreationally.

One day, you will realise that this is the greatest and most challenging chess variant ever invented.

It has a lot of competition, and it takes more than being the most challenging to make it the greatest. Also, if we’re so uninterested in this game that we can’t be bothered to understand its rules, there is just no way that we will ever realize it is the greatest and most challenging of chess variants. As for myself, I’m not even sure this is a chess variant. Although it uses Chess equipment, it seems to be a very different sort of game than chess.

As for myself, I’m not even sure this is a chess variant. Although it uses Chess equipment, it seems to be a very different sort of game than chess.

Though it’s rather good (at least at first glance). Idea is very interesting.

Ben, who is our resident mathematician, has been handling this submission, and he asked some questions I have not seen any answer to yet. When we ask questions about a submission, we will normally leave it unpublished until our questions are answered. So, instead of complaining that people don't like "maths", you should be cooperating with Ben and answering his questions.

I can't access these two sites: http://jocly.com/ https://talkchess.com/

The former does not work from the USA either. It is probably down, because the development of Jocly cost a lot of money, and it was never profitable. The latter is an American site and works from the USA.

Thanks for telling me about the websites!

I can't think of any outstanding questions now. But the rules are disjuncted and conversational, making them harder to parse (for me). I was planning on taking a pass at editing when I next have the time.

I actually addressed all the points raised in the previous comments. It took me several months to figure out the rules and make this game work. If you do a game simulation on Musketeer Board Painter you will see that this game is actually fun to play and has no more issues about the rules.

As a person who likes solving difficult puzzles I believe that this game deserves to be taken seriously. Please do a game simulation on Musketeer Board Painter following the above rules and let me know what you think about it.

I've taken an editing pass, mostly moving passages around for better grouping. @Florin feel free to modify anything that I've changed, but I think the only actual rule difference I've made is regarding territories with tied contributions from the two players: since they make no difference to the comparative score of the two players, but I think counting them as positive makes the score that's up for grabs easier to understand, I like splitting the value instead of zeroing it out.

In re-reading and -writing, I still don't understand merged territories. Does "if they can control them" actually mean something? (What stops someone from putting two empty squares next to each other?) Is scoring modified in any meaningful way? (I did replace "8 settler", "5 settler" and "3 settler" territories by "center" "side" and "corner" resp. in the bonus section thinking that's what you meant, but I guess if you have joined or even diagonally adjacent territories they mean different things.)

I don't know how to set up a simulation in musketeer board painter.

In the example endgame, in the newest edition of the rules black would get another move after white passes. I haven't stared at it for any significant amount of time, but I think e5 pushes d5-c5 looks interesting, depending on joined territory rules. It would put three black kings on the horizontal boundary of the new territory, and if it qualifies for the bonus that's worth 240 total (original plus bonus)? Perhaps that also suggests there needs to be a rule about repetition: don't want two opposing royals pushing a single piece back and forth.

That was a good review of the game. Thank you for your time. I have added the repetition rule. As for the territorial merging, it's hard enough to control a single territory and prevent it from invasion. On a bigger territory that will be even harder. You are right about the black King from e5 having the possibility to push the white bishop to c5 but that wouldn't win additional points for black. The "three of a kind" rule should also imply the same colour too. Also, the new territory created at e5 would give the white player even more points.

I had assumed the newly merged territory (d5+d6) would count the three black kings at d4, e5, and d7.

Also, the new territory created at e5 would give the white player even more points.

e5 isn't a territory at all, let alone for white.

If the black King from e5 pushes the white Bishop from d5 to c5, it will take the Bishop's place at d5 and the new territory will move to e5. I have updated the diagram for this example but for some reason I can't upload it right now.

I hope the updated rules have covered everything.

Covered but not everything. I found typo in the start (arround empty squares), different themes in diagrams (please choose: cburnett or alfaerie) and, finally, you forgot one King:

The c5 territory

• White = (10x2) + (3x2) + 10 = 36 points
• Black = (3x2) +(3x2) + 3 + 10 = 15 25 points
• White wins = 36 + 15 25 = 51 61 points. Also there are 3 black bishops, isn’t their summary value tripled? In this case, it’d be 45 and therefore White doesn’t win this space but wins the game. (And so on)

Idk if it’s all. I hope one day it’ll be approved.

I didn't notice the three black Bishops on c5. That was a good point, but still, the black player can't win the game.

I have to recalculate the points. Thanks.

I hope everyone is happy with this game now. The only problem is that I am unable, for some reason, to upload the diagram for the last example. I have tried many times.

I'm having similar issue uploading a couple of new icons into my Icon Clearinghouse. Whatever the trouble, hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

I updated the royal push text to avoid the interpretation I had before. There are still two things left to explain about it:

1. "lower" pieces: can a king push a queen, or does this just mean royals vs non?
2. Can a queen push a piece two squares, if there is a joined territory?

The author, Florin Lupusoru, has updated this page.

Thanks for your suggestions.

1) I have changed "lower pieces" to non Royals.

2) I also allowed the Queen to move more than two squares per turn across/along a joined territory, if that is possible.

Please let me know if there is anything else.