Comments by CBagleyJones

knight + camel + zebra is a buffalo
http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/buffalo.html

hey joe at this site here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm#F
the 'alfil + fers' is listed under the name 'Ferfil'!
there are a lot of interesting piece descriptions at that site.

i like the rule if you bare the enemy king, you win, even if you can be
bared next move, it is more exciting, and makes for less draws he he.
i thought this rule used to exist first, but then got changed, is this
right?
i think i remember reading here on this site someone saying this
somewhere.

how would you describe, if possible, these group of leapers in one sentence
(or two if need be)
Tripper (3,3) leaper
Commuter (4,4) leaper
Threeleaper (0,3) leaper
Fourleaper (0,4) leaper
Flamingo (1,6) leaper
Antelope (3,4) leaper
Root-fifty leaper (5,5) + (1,7) leaper
Lancer (2,4) leaper
Fiveleaper (0,5) + (3,4) leaper

it should be done properely, you should update it to include that
variant at zillions site, then tell the ed's here, i'll email you

I just noticed actually, everything you said after 'extremely awkward' could be used to describe these pieces. Anyway, i was just wondering if they were, as i said earlier, 'categorized' as something etc etc

hey, merry christmas everyone :)

well i called the 0-5, 4-3 leaper a fiveleaper, because i've never seen it
referred to as anything else. if you 'google' the word 'fiveleaper'
plenty of websites have info on the fiveleaper, and every single one i've
seen gives the fiveleaper as a 0-5, 4-3 leaper. some sites are pretty cool
too, here is an amazing one that gives 'fiveleaper tours' on a 8x8
board, see how many there are! http://www.ktn.freeuk.com/9f.htm

Yes i agree, people should be able to name pieces as they see fit. For Sky i tried to use 
names that seem the most commonly used. 'All the King's Men' site gives all leapers in Sky 
except the Flamingo and Lancer, with no reference to a 6-1 and 4-2 leaper. I had never seen 
the names 'tripper' and 'commuter' before, but these names are also given at 'knights tour 
notes' site, along with the lancer, on this page here http://www.ktn.freeuk.com/9a.htm#(3) 
it also has other pieces names mentioned here that are interesting. i found the name 'flamingo'
from this site here. anyway, lol, that is why there are boring names like 'threeleaper' and 
'fourleaper' etc etc :) oh here is 'All King's Men' which is a glossary of chess pieces 
from the British Variant Chess Society 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm

hey Michael, yes i think your right, 20 is too much, all the points you
raised are true. Pieces need room to maneuver and room to combine. I've
been looking at how many pieces should be used on a 10x10 lately, and it
seems to me that 12 (that's counting king/kings) plays pretty good. i am
hoping that 14 plays ok too, i think it does, but no doubt 12 is really
good (anything over 14 and i think the game title should start with the
word 'grand' he he).
anyway, i'd be interested to know what you conclude about the piece count
after you finish play-testing.

aww come on, now you are making me feel guilty not adding the knight lol
:)
The goal of Sky was to create a game for these 'generally not seen in
games cause of their long leap' pieces (he he). Still, where is the
knight .. well, since i released Sky, i have put together the
'root-65-leaper' (8-1), (7-4) and the 'root-85-leaper' (9-2), (7-6). I
doubt these pieces are in any game. It would be interesting to see these
leapers play, but i'm too happy with the game as it is to change, but i
could make a new variant for these 2 leapers, and maybe the knight could
sneak in with them :) One piece i would love to see in action, but i doubt
i could code this piece in, is the 'Rose'. I don't know if this piece is
in a game, you would think it would be, but i havn't seen, anyway, if
anyone could help with that then that would be awesome. 
(update)  Ralph Betza's 'Chess on a Really Big Board' has the Rose, 
i just noticed, no zrf it seems though

David, thanks for info on Rose. i did not realise it was such a strong
piece, and more complex and interesting that i originally thought. i agree
that the 'half rose' is probably more practical.
Jared, thanks also for your info on 65 leaper. Not sure what your sorry
about, am guessing that you think i will be disappointed it is in a game,
but that is ok, i will live with it :)
i'll check out leaping bat chess, thanks again to you both for info.

(please, bring the option for 'unrated games' back as soon as possible) btw, i agree, the intention was good, top points for that, i just don't know why you didn't talk to the players/members beforehand, which would of been nice, or am i wrong, did i somehow miss this conversation?

well if you don't play games Michael, your rating will drop :)
looks like mine will be dropping too he he. (i'm kinda a little shocked
by that)
not that i really care but, i must be bored, but doesn't that mean, if
you have two players that have a 'true' rating (played many rated games)
of 1500, and one of them is inactive for a bit, therefore rating drops, now
if these players play, it will be a game between 2 players where one is
higher rated than the other, where in reality, it should be a game between
equals ... wouldn't that distort ratings after outcome?
another thing, fair amount of games played are more in the spirit of
TESTING OUT A VARIANT, more than anything else. i agree with those that
said that only 'tournament games' should be rated, unless people agree
otherwise beforehand.
as far as 1500 vs 3000, and 1500 rises 750 points if wins, surely that is
too much. i agree that 3000 player should not drop 'heavily'
finally (yawn), are we going to see people less likely to put up a
challenge because of fear of someone much less rated accepting?
will this lead to 'behind the scenes' arranging of games? 
if a vote was taken, would more people want ratings than not?
sorry for length, just adding food for thought.