Comments by DerekNalls
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
My, you are a barn-burner! [Fast, too.] You seem to clearly understand what you have undertaken and introduced. For the test purpose you have in mind, my preliminary assessment is that your assortment of games are above average to excellent. Are you hoping for a collective interest and effort which will get enough of these games adequately playtested within a reasonable time to prove and/or disprove one of our competing, mutually-exclusive hypotheses? Perhaps, it will happen. I hope so. Best of luck and my compliments for your remarkable initiative! By the way, you may have invented a great game today (which you will someday be remembered for) even if doing so was merely incidental to your main purpose.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
'A leaperless combination of Bigamous Chess and Episcopal Chess with RBBQKQBBR would probably be closer to Derek's ideal, I would think, and avoid the 'all Bishops on one color' problem of Bigamous Chess.' ________________________________________________________________ Just my opinion- On an 8H x 9W board, this is the best possible test game of all I have seen proposed if you are willing to admit one more large variant. All credit is rightfully Aronson's.
'Although they gain left/right symmetry, for whatever that is worth, I think it is more important to have one's Bishops on opposite colors.' _______________________________________________________________________ Your assessment is correct. Having both bishops trapped in the same spacing (light or dark) is a serious imbalance (asymmetry) and design flaw. This is not a correct way to gain left-right (E-W) symmetry. Fortunately, it is not unduly difficult to devise a correct way to gain left-right (E-W) symmetry. If you gain a treasure chest but its weight sinks your ship, what have gained ultimately?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.