[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by DerekNalls
There are many types of mental endeavors which can help people exercise their minds, sharpen their acuity or even, enhance their intelligence slightly-to-moderately over time. I would not assess playing board games as being of greater importance than many other, unrelated (or seemingly so) ways. However, game-playing is ideal for this purpose due to the great number of events which can be simulated and learned from via feedback within a brief time without risking harm to one's self or others in any non-trivial way (unless gambling is involved). At a cursory glance, people generally classify games as trivial pursuits. Maybe so. Yet game theory is the most instructive branch of mathematics applicable to areas of life generally agreed to be far more effectual and important than mere parlor games. Economics, business, political science, revolutionary theory, military science, legal theory, legislation, police science, terrorist behavior, criminal behavior, social behavior, etc can all be learned from, to some extent, from the perspective of game theory. Essentially, game theory offers some valuable holistic insights with predictive, empowering or controlling potential into many of the possible resourceful, rational decisions and moves by governments, corporations and individuals designed to maximize rewards and minimize losses or risks. Of course, the complexity intrinsic to these non-scientific subjects, which do not allow some important variables to be isolated or treated mathematically, gives rise to many errors and limitations. Nonetheless, a wide range of seemingly-unrelated subjects which involve utilitarian behavior and its various methods of calculation can be approached with some fruitfulness by this mathematical science with interdisciplinary value. The reason I do not consider chess variants trivial lies in my marginally-tenable theory, ideal or notion that perfect game(s) truly exist within the infinite universe of possibilities. Moreover, I am confident that our efforts to discover or invent perfect game(s) can and eventually, will succeed (if they have not already). Furthermore, I would classify any perfect game created as a perfect model and in turn, value any perfect model very highly instead of trivially as an educational tool which could possibly be catalytic to rapid and/or deep human learning to the greatest extent. In turn, this extraordinary tool for human learning could have an unprecedented, high positive transfer to other important subjects of study effecting humanity which are also approachable from game theory- the limiting factors involving levels of emergence and mental adaptivity where crossing distinct subject matters.
I suspect the estimation of Pres. George W. Bush's IQ at 91 is about right, perhaps even generous. Sometimes, IQ tests yield results which make one wonder how reasonable or accurate they may be. After all, there seems to be no way to definitively test IQ tests and educational psychology is far from an exact science. The estimated IQ of 135 for Gary Kasparov is some proof or indication of how inaccurate IQ tests can be. Anyone who has memorized an opening book of appr. 2 million positions for chess, can reliably identify and execute any part of it quickly and errorlessly and moreover, is one of the very best in the world at intelligently improvising mid-game and endgame scenarios without it is extremely intelligent (if not a genius or borderline). Yes, some highly intelligent people do not find standardized tests or normal conversations (thru which their IQ can be revealed) especially interesting, engaging or motivating.
Cross3D Chess. 3D Chess game where pieces are arranged in a cross shape. (8x(8x8), Cells: 512) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Description- (Symmetrical Chess Collection) section- '3-D chess variants' page 25 http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf Until recently, I was also passionate about 3-D chess designs and at least, my prospects for creating games sometime in the distant future when 3-D graphics in a universal chess variant program (perhaps, ZOG) were up-to-par. Currently, I no longer intend to develope any 3-D games. Nonetheless, you have mentioned (on a few forums) one method which may acceptably, practically overcome my so-called 'fatal flaw': 'Planar pieces' (as opposed to 'linear pieces') with greatly enhanced moving capabilities. Personally, I am unwilling to admit 'planar pieces' into any games of my creation as their movements supercede vision (much as the transporter in Star Trek lore). Obviously, you do not find this objectionable, though. This, in tandem with a white-black-black-white turn order, may be the key to your dreams as it would insure that your resulting 3-D games are not too drawish.
'The drawish-ness of 3D Chess is not predicated upon the turn order but upon the material necessary to form a mating position.' _______________________________________________________ In this instance, I did not mention the white-black-black-white turn order due to concern over the first-move-of-the-game advantage (by white). The material necessary to form a mating position is greatly reduced in games where a double-move is commonplace since, for example, having 2 moves per turn (instead of 1 move) can enable a player to strike any space on a 2-D board (if not too exotic in its geometry) with a 2-D queen (a linear piece) within 1 turn. Using planar pieces, I ascertain that it is likewise possible on a 3-D board (if not too exotic in its geometry) with a 3-D omni-directional piece (a planar piece). In light of what I know now, you Smith brothers (no relation) have devised the only feasible and potentially, complete solution to the numerous problems endemic to 3-D chess variants. I wish you success in your future efforts.
Stanley Random Chess 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Pity to the poor soul who actually tries to play this game! Remove it.
Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fischer vs. Topalov Fischer Random Chess http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=53662 According to this news report, both are willing to play one another. Will negotiations over money and the details of the competition hold-up, though?
Stanley Random Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would at least recommend that your editorial policy insist that all gamepages be mainly serious and rational in describing the rules, board, pieces, history, etc. In this case, it should clearly state that Stanley Random Chess is a game where the rules are hidden information. Advocates of this game are not winning any new fans by having their game genuinely mistaken for a hoax or a practical joke by intelligent peers. Furthermore, frustrating people who show a serious interest with endless layers of presumably funny or witty bullshit is neither humorous nor clever. A number of people have received extremely-far-from-straight answers to their straight questions. The humor in their treatment escapes me completely.
Welcome! This is the friendliest place in the world.
Tragic. Somehow we must survive this setback and carry on.
Chessboxing- the thinking man's contact sport http://www.chessboxing.com
Scirocco (old). On ten by ten board with over thirty different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]'Adrian King tried to cure all the ills of chess in one ambitious variant. While this attempt was doomed to fail, it is worth studying carefully.' I cannot understand such extreme pessimism. Why do you automatically believe all possible solutions to a problem are 'doomed to fail'?
I think I can voice some encouragement for 'Anonymous' even though I
classify my position as neutral and realistic, neither optomistic nor
pessimistic.
Yes, 'there are plenty of good reasons for making chess variants besides trying to create the perfect one'. However, 'trying to create the perfect one' is the truly outstanding and inspiring reason. As to whether or not it is actually achievable, I maintain that creating a virtually perfect game is. Moreover, I can tentatively offer only ONE game I have ever created as a living proof ... to be lacerated at will by any or all naysayers who hang out here. It is named 'Hex Chess (square-spaced)'. Please check it out!
I prefer to venture that a more appropriate or correctly applicable parallel or analogy is a limit (in the sense of calculus) whereby perfection is not absolutely achievable but progressively approachable thru the correct solution of as many successive, problem terms or steps as possible. By no means do I regard this parallel or analogy as a perfect fit to our endeavor, though:
1. I strongly doubt that the number of game-design principles which must be adhered to in order to create the best chess variant possible is infinite (and thus, unachievable). I am aware of only appr. 25 essential and appr. 25 non-essential game-design principles which I consider important enough to comply with in every case. After six years of thought and work, I have become convinced that I have not overlooked or failed to consider any critically important topics within our craft.
2. The importance of the various problem terms or factors in game design varies greatly. One is most important (symmetry), several are vital, dozens are of minor-to-trivial benefit ... to comply with. Consequently, I have reasons to think that a board game exhibiting 75%-90% perfection (as if anyone has devised a proven, reliable mathematical method to measure such value-judgment laden qualities) can readily be implemented by anyone with sufficient expertise to follow several well-defined guidelines.
_____________________________________________
'It may also hold for chess variants that all the ideal characteristics of a chess variant cannot compatibly coexist in the same game. If that is so, then the ideal chess variant is a pipedream.'
Your logic is impeccable but your premise, although very interesting, is dubious as it is drawn via precarious, interdisciplinary leaps from abstract findings in political philosophy and mathematical logic which may not be pertinent or unconditionally applicable to our specialized area. By the way, I address the issue of the apparent-yet-surpassable, incompatibility of ideal characteristics in chess variants within (and to some extent, throughout) my main descriptive essay and demonstrate the feasibility of these ideas via the implementation of one game.
On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I respect the need to be diplomatic with a publication by an editor of the CV Pages. Overall, this is a fine, well-structured article covering the basics of chess variant design which fills a need using accessible language and clear examples. The only fault I find within it is that it does not, in sharp contrast to my own essay on the subject, contain a minimum of necessary value judgments. I cringed only at the parts where you advise newcomers to use the three classic games as models for good design and to intentionally create an east-west asymmetry within their armies. Even though you personally hold those preferences, I doubt the necessity of sending any-all trusting souls down those dead-end roads.
Please forgive my unclear writing.
I meant that our respective essays have very distinct purposes.
Mine is mainly documentation for a specific game, justifying its features in terms of likes and dislikes (based upon reason) with a maximum of value judgments.
Yours is an educational article of general purpose which should contain a minimum of value judgments (although quality itself unavoidably entails value judgments). Hopefully, many people will benefit from reading it over the years.
I do not wish to argue (further) about either of the two topics you
mentioned within your essay. I only wish to point-out that both topics are controversial and opinionated. As such, I ask you to seriously
consider whether or not they have a proper place within an article covering
the essentials (but not the abstracts) of sound chess variant design.
All of these comments are as readily available to the reader as your main article. They serve as sufficient warning to the reader that a couple of your hopefully-or-allegedly, best recommendations are controversial. For newcomers to learn to think critically and decide for themselves about every foundational, value judgment is in their best interests, anyway.
Chess Computers Unbeatable
(This article can be found at the Sofia News Agency.)
Chess variants with radically different game-ending objectives arguably do not meet the proper, restrictive definition of 'chess variants'. Still, a tournament which strays from the standard stuff by one or more criteria could be interesting (albeit embarrassing to those who only play strongly at games similar to standard FIDE chess). Yes, shine a spotlight into a dark, rare cubbyhole of the CV literature! Nothing radical, mind you. No games allowed that are not at least supported by the Zillions program. [Game Courier support, optional.] I am suggesting excluding games of the type that are usually included within these tournaments thereby including games that are usually excluded. Here are several example, exclusion criteria which would instantly eliminate the majority of well-known chess variants from illegibility. I am sure others can come-up with many more. 1. No chess variants played upon a rectangular (or square) board. 2. No chess variants using the standard white-black turn order. 3. No chess variants with the game-ending objective (established at the beginning of the game) of capturing a single royal piece (king, usually). 4. No chess variants using a majority of pieces common to chess, shogi or xiang-qi. 5. No chess variants with asymmetrical opening setups or gameboards. 6. No chess variants ever played in a previous tournament at the CV Pages. By the way, I am indifferent to speculations about my ulterior motives.
In fact, the Zillions program actually DOES have a ply depth control. It is illusive though and has been mistakenly presumed by many (including myself) to not exist. Please read this thread of interest from the Zillions discussion board: http://zillionsofgames.com/discus/ You must navigate manually the rest of the way since deep-linking is not supported. Zillions of Games Discussion Forum: Desired Features for Zillions of Games: Time keeping
Amazon Grand Chess. A combination of Grand Chess and Amazon Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I also agree with Duniho's proposal of a ban on sequelled game names by different inventors. For the purposes of eligibility for a contest, we should pass no judgment on the games themselves but for their names, the inventors should be made to 'go back to the drawing board' and come-up with something original.
Royal Queens Chess . Game with full board and all pieces are sliders or immobile and victory is by capture of all 8 opposing Queens.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thank you for posting it but this game no longer exists anywhere. So, please delete this page since the link is dead.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.