Comments by CBagleyJones

The more i've looked at this game, the more i like it. I think it is an interesting idea, adding the elements of a pawn to the bishop and knight. One thing is that the new pieces are very easy to grasp and therefore very playable, they mix with the normal pieces very well, and the best thing about them is, they both are less powerful than the rook. Nice!!

Hawk: Moves like a bishop or moves 1 square vertically forward. It also has 2 non-capture moves, 1 square vertically backwards or a 2 square vertically forward leap.

Elephant: Moves like a knight or has a capture only move, 1 square diagonally forward. It also has a non-capture move, being able to slide 1-3 squares vertically forward.

Zillions rates the Hawk more powerful than the Elephant. The Hawk is of course not colorbound. I like the Elephant's capture only move 1 square diagonally forward. The knight, when added with extra power, is often too overbearing, but here, in this game, it is not. Nice idea also giving the knight the 3,1 option with it's very first move, good on the 10x10.

Murphy's laws (some of them)

If anything can go wrong, it will

If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway

If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go
wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will
promptly develop
Corollary: It will be impossible to fix the fifth fault, without breaking
the fix on one or more of the others

Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse

If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked
something

Things get worse under pressure.

Everything goes wrong all at once.

Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value

In nature, nothing is ever right. Therefore, if everything is going right
... something is wrong.

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so
ingenious.

Nothing is as easy as it looks.

Everything takes longer than you think.

Everything takes longer than it takes.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.

Every solution breeds new problems.

no matter how perfect things are made to appear, Murphy's law will take
effect and screw it up.

You will always find something in the last place you look.

Just when you think things cannot get any worse, they will.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Said by Isaac Asimov

Knowing Murphy's Law will never help.

To know Murphy's Law is to draw its attention.

If for some reason Murphy's Law fails to operate, it is building up for
something big.

ok, sorry for my post, you are right, you are entitled to your opinion.
It's just that, it is your opinoin, your personal taste, about the type of pieces you like. Because you like certain type of pieces, does not make a game that has other kind of pieces 'poor'.
You would rate all the old medieval shogi games 'poor' i am guessing.
They have pieces like .. 'moves 1-2 squares vertically, 1-3 squares diagonally and any amount of squares horizontally.'
Even pieces that move in more harder ways to learn.
There are pieces i don't really like, certain compound pieces, other people do not prefer them too, but heaps of other people like them. I am not going to go and rate these games 'poor', just because i personally dont like these pieces.
when i first made games, i was not understanding much about 'piece density', and i made games that are 'horror's', because of too many pieces, these games can be rated 'poor', because of that reason. All they do now, is show what not to do, they show how a game is destroyed because of too many pieces, lol. But to rate a game 'poor' because you dont personally like pieces ... well, not the right thing to do, i think.
Anyway, that is personal opinion i guess, haha. Sorry if i upset, my bad, i got to .. not post so fast hehe. All the best.

hehe yeah, that's a funny one.
we should make up some 'murphy laws' for chess, here's one from me,
hehe.

if you have a won endgame, the chances of losing are in direct proportion
to the amount of people watching.

Hi Mr Hubert, how are you going :)
ok, i think we both have not fully understood each other, so, let's see if we can fix this up. I will give an example of what i was trying to say earlier.
 
I don't like the rook/knight and bishop/knight compound pieces, i find them frustrating to play with and too powerful, especially with the queen etc. That is my personal taste. I do appreciate these pieces though, they are classic fairy pieces, and there is nothing wrong with them. I would not rate a game 'poor' because they are in it (feel funny saying this cause i may release a game with these pieces in it, but there is a reason for that, haha). This is what i thought you were doing, rating a game 'poor' because you personally did not like the pieces, but i can see now, it is more than that. You don't like the pieces because of different reasons than i was thinking. Does that make sense?

So i understand why you rated this game 'poor', even though i do not agree. And you can rate as you want, that is ok. Now, you said 'if it is inappropriate to rate a game poor when that is what you think then editors should remove that option.' No no, the editors here, i am pretty sure, do not think it is inappropriate to rate a game poor. It's an option because it is ok to rate that way. No editor said you shouldn't.

And you said 'If editors want a 'don't say anything if you can't say nice' website that is their decision.' No, no editor said this, that is not a policy for the website.

Also, not sure why you said '...you want me to rate game excellent?' Hmm, i don't think i said i wanted you to rate the game excellent did i?

Anyway, all is good, hey, i think you should consider becoming a member of this site, i think it would be nice, you are having fun talking on forums, yes? Ok, hope i explained myself clear, laters :))

Thank you for this wonderful information, 1984!

We do know that this piece is called 'Templar', it is been said in this thread also. Sadly, Charles Gilman has a thing about 'problematist's' names for pieces. Charles likes pieces that have played in a game.

Charles, you should add the info that Alfred has given here on this page, at least, it is good to have this information there.

Nice big board shogi like games, wonderful array of pieces.
Goldpashtun and Silverpashtun great pieces. Lots more, have not looked at fully but i will, just thought i would post first off anyway. Congrats.

It doesn't really matter i guess.
You don't even have to say this is a problematist piece.
It's just the information that is interesting to be recorded, at the end of the page you could just have written something like ..

Under the name 'Templar', this piece appeared in a problem composition of
Bernd Schwarzkopf, published in the German magazine 'Problemkiste', No.23, 12/1984
(see 
'http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=PROBID='P1112855''
and 'http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/piecedef.pdb?id=M0000209').

I'm starting to think i like the name 'Whatever' for this piece anyway, lol.

Around a year ago i posted ..

aww this external link now doesn't work, i wanted to just look again at the rules of this game, is Danny Purvis still around, or, omg, is this game 'lost in time'? 

Well i found the page, and forgot to post. Anyone who has not read this description of this game should have a look, it is amazing. Here is the link .. http://www.wgosa.org/ttchsrules.htm

Could an editor please fix the link given on this page, thanks!

oh this link is to do with the game also
http://www.wgosa.org/ttchsglos.htm

sorry, this is the best link.

http://www.wgosa.org/ttchs.htm

Charles, thanks for info.

Yes, there is a 'Free Copper' piece, the reason i did not add it was that it moves exactly like the 'White Horse'. There are 3 pieces that have the same movement as other pieces in this collection, i didn't notice it till after they were done, i just left them anyway. But i guess it's all still information on pieces, so, i've added the 'Free Copper' now also.

The 'rook' and 'bishop' names, yes, of course these are not translations of the japanese names. All info on pieces comes from Wikipedia game pages, and, for some reason, everyone seems to call these pieces 'rook' and 'bishop', without any mention of 'flying chariot' and 'angle mover', except for the page on 'standard shogi 9x9'. I dont know why this is so, maybe because the names are so well established, or for easy finding of these pieces, not sure. I have now added in 'help' (this is the info you see when you mouse over a piece within 'zillions') this info for these pieces. Also, on wikipedia, you always find 'pawn' and 'king', which are not japanese translations.

I also added 'honorable horse' info to the 'Keima' piece.
What is this 'Kyoosha' name referring to? Sorry, i'm not sure what this is.

Heya Fergus, some questions.

This is not going to wipe out all the ratings over the years that have
already happened, is it? I certainly hope not.

And, you are talking about implementing a new rating system, shouldn't you
talk to the members about it to see what they think first?

I think the rating system in place is fine, it is casual, and that is what
a lot of people here are, i think. If you are going to make it serious,
that would be ok, IF about 20 people decided to go through every game and
rate them, AND every game was on game courier. Heaps of people don't rate games. Heaps of people dont rate games they think are good, too.

What is the point of the question ... 'How many times have you played this
game?' (why, who cares). I rated 'capablanca chess' and other games
'excellent', and i havn't even played them, ask me to explain more if
you can be bothered.

And the question, 'how many times have you played this game', this
affects a game's rating???? How is this fair, when all games are not on
game courier. Plenty of people do not know how to put a game on game
courier, plenty of people can't be bothered. Look at how many people play
games here on game courier, a small percentage of the amount that post. I
can't see how this is fair to games that are not on game courier.

i just doubt this rating system is very fair to all, that is my point.
Also, i dont understand why you say ratings at the moment are hidden. Let
me pick a random recent game, 'Battle of Six Armies', ok, now i go to the
bottom of page, and i find 'Number of ratings: 1, Average rating:
Excellent, Number of comments: 2. (What is hidden??)

Anyway, for the record, i'm happy with the rating system as it is, and if
a new system is started, make my games 'unrateable' please, thanks.

Hey, Fairy Pieces Part 2 is coming soon, it is all non-shogi pieces. Charles, i have added some of your pieces (Knave, Debtor, Zebshal, Goldpastun etc). I wouldn't mind your input on this, i can't see an email for you, email me if you want to talk about this please, i can send you what i have done so far (text).
You too Mr. George Duke, Jörg, Joe, or ANYONE  interested in seeing what i have done right now, which is over 130 pieces. This is much harder to do than the shogi pieces, of course, because of the problem of naming them and info on what other names they have appeared under (within reason) and where they first appeared (what game).
Names are considered either by what they are commonly known as, or what they were first called, which can be a problem. This will be released on a couple of zrf's. It will be first of all put up on this site, so people can see and correct my errors regarding the naming etc etc and also suggest pieces to be added.

haha George, your a funny guy :)
I'm am surely not an expert, and do not deserve to go in your little list there. Probably my best game is 'Sky', but, i'm more into fairy pieces than designing chess variants, but thanks anyway.

ah ok, i do now remember seeing something like 'make this game available
for rating'. I agree, this is probably useless, and hidden, mainly because
people who do rate, rate the 'game page' or 'article page'. This still
does give an indication about what people think, especially if a game does
get a few good ratings, then people who disagree tend to come out and rate
it.

Now, you say 'one option would be to migrate the data from this
to what I am proposing. Another option is to leave it as a separate page
rating system.'

I personally would like it to be seperate, see what others think. I can't
see a problem keeping it seperate. Especially because, i'm still having
major issues with this 'how many times have you played this game'
question. Yes, as you say, game courier is not the only way to play, there
is zillions and other engines and what have you, but, the fact remains,
even counting all these, many, many games are still not available counting
all these.

I understand how this question can tell how popular a game can be, but as
far as indicating how a great a game is, that is another question. I still
see it as being a bit unfair to many games.