Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by John Lawson

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Test Page. Members-Only Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

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.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 02:48 AM UTC:
Regarding 'cockles', below.  Note that the link actually provides no
solution to the meaning of 'cockles' in this sense.  Neither does the
Oxford English Dictionary, which has much the same info as the editor's
link.  The upshot is, we don't know what 'cockles' are.
I once read a hypothesis that suggested that expressions that were used
formulaicly, but made no sense (like 'dead as a doornail') were actually
the punchlines of forgotten jokes.  Sounds dopey, but think of how many
punchlines you use as metaphors in colloquial conversation, and how often
you really tell the jokes they go with.

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 06:54 AM UTC:
So, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and
so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that
haven't actually been posted?  Then, going forward, the comments will be
where they belong.  I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments
about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page?

Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the
top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT.  Maybe we could
include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last
comment, or something like that.

Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 07:26 AM UTC:
Peter, I've recently been playing Grand Camelot in another venue.  Grand
Camelot is a four-player version of Parker Brothers Camelot game.  (To the
peanut gallery: Yes, I know it's not a chess variant; let me finish.)  

Grand Camelot has two unusual features for a four-player game:
1 - Partners sit side by side.  Translating to this game, Red and Green
would be partners against Yellow and Black.
2 - The turn sequence is a 'figure-8'.  Translated to Chaturanga 4-84, that
would be Red - Yellow - Green - Black (repeat)

This small change works surprisingly well, and I've wondered if it would be
as successful in a 4-player CV like this.  I generally find 4-player
abstract strategy board games annoying, but Grand Camelot is lots of fun
and very exciting.

Also, the comment about the ZRF being double-dummy brought an idea to mind.
 Has there been a CV (e.g. Bridge Chess or Whist Chess) where the players
bid to achieve a certain outcome?  The partner of the 'declarer' sits out,
and the defenders play without communication.  This might be a possible
thing to design.  One could even play a Feeback version with ones
physician, attorney, and accountant.

John Lawson wrote on Thu, Apr 4, 2002 01:33 AM UTC:
By the way, if anyone were interested, the link to the World Camelot
Federation website, where the rules of Grand Camelot are posted is:
http://communities.msn.com/WORLDCAMELOTFEDERATION

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Fri, Apr 5, 2002 02:09 AM UTC:
I fall between Peter and David here.  When I write a comment, I don't
really plan it.  Something in the page, or another comment sets me off, and
I just start writing.  If it leads somewhere not completely germaine to the
page being commented on, so be it.

BUT, the result is that discussions that are potentially interesting or
inspiring get buried attached to pages that effectively conceal them from
later browsers.  (Look at the recent discussion attached to the
'Archoniclastic Chess' page.)

To do the thing properly, comments should be limited to the variant they
are attached to, and any flight of fancy should be moved to the discussion
group.  I think this is against human nature (at least mine) and I would
probably never make 50% of those posts.  Furthermore, the discussion group
posting may be cryptic outside of context of the variant page that inspired
it.

On the other side, the number of people 'misusing' the comment system are
relatively small.  It would be a huge waste of time and resources to build
a parallel discussion system for a handful of 'chatterers'.  Also, the
public discussion board has a better possibility of attracting random
searchers.

Maybe a compromise is possible.  Let me note here that I am no programmer,
and I have no idea how difficult any particular idea would be to implement.
 An idea that seems simple to me might be to allow the writer of an
extended comment to select a small set of keywords ('Ruddigore',
'double-move') which the comment system could also search for.

Better ideas?

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
John Lawson wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 04:25 AM UTC:
I know I'm just being a pest, but maybe the default number of comments that are on the new comments page should be rather less than 100. It loads really fast, but if there are 100 long comments, it could take a while for us poor benighted souls who live too far out in the boondocks to have DSL, and don't wish to pay our cable companies triple per month. If they were just 'Excellent, great job!' it would be OK, but when some of those wordy people start writing, and talking about things that aren't even chess variants, well.....

John Lawson wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 05:17 PM UTC:
Detail mode.  This is how I use the comments:

   I arrive at the What's New page via bookmark.

   If there is a new topic of interest, I investigate, and comment if
inspired.

   If the 'last comment' time is more recent than the last time I logged
on, I review the recent comments. 

A minimal visit is two clicks (What's New, recent comments).  Usually I
visit at least every other day.  If the comments were in summary, I would
have to expand each one to see what it's about.  

By way of explanation, I attempt to reduce the amount of typing and mousing
I do to a minimum.  Many of my older, professional IT colleagues have
become diabled due to repetitive motion injuries.  I have many years left
to work, and I spend 8 hours a day in front of my workstation earning a
living, then come home and play with my personal computer.  I would like to
be able to enjoy my computer in retirement without wrist braces and voice
response.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 12:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Wow!!  

Who said theme doesn't count in abstract games?  I want to play this, but I
think I'm going to be disapointed when the pieces remain silent.  I want to
see a ZRF, but not too soon.  Whoever does it needs to do a good job on the
graphics, not to mention audio, to do the game justice.

'What eldritch noise did I hear?'  Perhaps the screech of the El.

John Lawson wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 05:04 AM UTC:
I have rarely seen so much chatter as for this game. (N.B. there is
significant commentary on Nemoroth in the Yellow Journalism thread.)

A couple of points:

Is Nemoroth a chess variant?  If gnohmon says it is, who am I to gainsay
him?  I am an 'inclusionist' when it comes to chess variants, anyway.  It
actually seems more like an Amazons variant, and there are other more
chess-like games that make use of the 'shrinking board' mechanism, but what
the heck.  (Bob Abbott, who invented Ultima, did not think it was chess,
because it did not use replacement captures.  He was an 'exclusionist'.)

When Nemoroth is refined, and the rules settle down, may we expect pages on
'The Value of the Nemoroth Pieces' and 'Nemoroth with Different Armies'? 
Should we reserve the name www.nemorothvariants.com?

If interest remains high, how about the CVP sponsor a contest in Nemoroth
problem composition?

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Apr 15, 2002 03:00 AM UTC:
''values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible.' --- I was just joking
here.  I actually can't imagine how one could assign values, considering
all the interactions.  In regular chess, the only interaction is capture.

'Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects
have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically.'  --- True,
but it is possible to imagine other interactions that might be interesting.
 Several spring to mind (nature abhors a vacuum) but they could be as
simple as ichor with different effects.  One could even handicap by
allowing the ichor of each player to dissipate at different rates.

'The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push,
just for one example.' --- A trivially true statement.  Ceteris paribus, a 
Knight that can capture a Queen is worth more than one that can capture a
Bishop.  I consider values to be a statistical guide, not a received truth,
fun as they may be to study and play with.  (Of course, I stink as a chess
player, so what's my opinion worth?)

It is likely that I may soon be playing Nemoroth against another human via
email.  We will be sure to post our observations.

As a sidebar, there is really no assurance that any entity with which one
communicates via email alone is actually human.  We could all be alien
anthropologists, who, thinking we are studying humans, are studying each
other.  The resulting theses would be feces.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 04:37 AM UTC:
I am reviewing the document http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html and
I need to know if I have interpreted it correctly.


Statements:

[A Leaf Pile] can move onto a non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains
a Mummy and at least one other piece.

When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something,
it leaves behind a single Mummy; notice that this means no Mummy is left
behind when a Leaf Pile that is digesting something is pushed.

Conclusion:

If a Leaf Pile engulfs a multiple occupancy square including a Mummy, and
then is pushed, there is no Mummy remaining on that square.


Statement:

If the ichor will evaporate after you make your move but before your
opponent moves, you can ignore it.

Conclusion:

That ichor actually lasts nine plies, not five moves.


There will be more questions.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 02:29 PM UTC:
Wait, there's more.

Statements:

A Leaf Pile is subject to the effects of a Basilisk, and a petrified Leaf
Pile cannot engulf anything. 

A petrified Leaf Pile can still engulf things that are pushed onto it, and
it can still engulf things it is pushed onto. 

Conclusion:

Second statement is true, and more fun.

Corollary:

A Go Away pushing a petrified Leaf Pile around can vacuum up all sorts of
impedimenta.


Statement:

Any mobile piece except a Zombie within two squares of a Ghast must flee
the Ghast, and no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord
to a Ghast Square; the squares within the Ghast's range are called Ghast
Squares. 

Clarification requested:

If several pieces are under compulsion to flee a Ghast, but the Ghast moves
off before the compulsions can all be satisfied, the compulsions no longer
exist if the compelled pieces are no longer on Ghast squares.

Additional statements:

When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the
compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece,
you lose. 

The Human moves one square sideways, or one square straight forward, or one
square diagonally forward, but only to an empty non-ichorous square. 

Hypothetical situation:

Alabaster Human on f5, Obsidian Ghast moves to f6, creating compulsion for
human to flee.  Assume there is no other Alabaster piece under compulsion
this move, and no saving move is possible.  The Human can only move to e5,
e6, g5, or g6.  These squares are still adjacent to the Obsidian Ghast.  Is
this a win for Obsidian due to stalemate by compulsion?

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 05:49 PM UTC:
Why discriminate against non-HTML comments? I have no clue how to create an HTML comment, and feel slighted. (I do know what HTML stands for, however.)

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 11:53 PM UTC:
No, no, not a smaller font, PLEASE! Some of us use bifocals, and have enough trouble already.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 12:18 AM UTC:
OK, now I'm going to try to clarify ichor:

          Alabaster             Obsidian

          Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1    Ichor deposited       Ichor ply 2
          Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 3           Ichor ply 4

Move 3    Ichor ply 5           Ichor ply 6

Move 4    Ichor ply 7           Ichor ply 8

Move 5    Ichor ply 9           Ichor ply 10
                                Obsidian pieces need not 
                                move off ichorated square

OR

          Alabaster             Obsidian

                                Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1                          Ichor deposited
                                Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 2           Ichor ply 3

Move 3    Ichor ply 4           Ichor ply 5

Move 4    Ichor ply 6           Ichor ply 7

Move 5    Ichor ply 8           Ichor ply 9           

Move 6    Ichor ply 10
          Alabaster pieces need not 
          move off ichorated square


Does this look right?

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 12:36 AM UTC:
Note that the moving Wounded Fiend in the prior comment could belong to either player if it was forced to flee by a Go Away.

John Lawson wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 02:42 AM UTC:
Two topics remain: <p>Ichor - There is no problem with your ichor rules. The problem resided in my head. You should leave them as they are. (I was starting the ply count the half-turn after the Wounded Fiend moved.) <p>Leaf Piles - If you get into the head of a Leaf Pile, as described, there are only two different rules that make sense: <p>1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains at least one mummy or statue, period. <p>2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one other mobile piece to engulf. <p>I haven't played the game yet, so I don't know which to recommend.

Mideast chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board, inspired by ancient Tamerlane chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 06:40 PM UTC:
Your long comment has the even more alarming typo 'Cooked Bishop', a piece probably appropriate only to the as-yet-to-be-imagined Cannibal and Missionary Chess.

John Lawson wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 07:45 PM UTC:
You could combine the concepts of a Cooked Bishop and a Crocked Bishop into something like 'Bishop au vin', 'Bishop Marsala', or 'Potted Bishop'! It becomes less appealing when generalized to the Horse, though.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Sun, Apr 21, 2002 09:07 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
David - <p>Just feeding back to let you know I really like all the improvements you've made to the comment system. It looks like people other than the usual ones are stating to use it, too. (I guess I'm going to have to learn what an HTML tag is, though. I'm not ashamed of my ignorance; I know things about mainframe computers.) <p>I at first thought the Minimal New page was an odd idea, but it turns out to be great, because it refreshes in the blink of an eye. <p>The only quibble is I don't like to have to expand long comments, but I'm probably in the minority, and cerainly against fashion.

John Lawson wrote on Sun, Apr 21, 2002 06:26 PM UTC:
David - <p>I thought you got $100k/year! Vanilla is always best in software.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 01:03 PM UTC:
Regarding notation, I had developed a scheme to use when playing via email.
 I have pasted the essence of it below.  I like the way Moussambani records
moves, but check out my scheme for tracking ichor on an ASCII diagram.

Nemoroth notation and ASCII diagrams                     ver.1.0


 Mobile piece symbols-
 
 Alabaster
 B - Basilisk
 G - Ghast
 L - Leaf Pile
 A - Go Away
 W - Wounded Fiend
 H - Human
 Z - Zombie
 
 Obsidian
 b - Basilisk
 g - Ghast
 l - Leaf Pile
 a - Go Away
 w - Wounded Fiend
 h - Human
 z - Zombie


 Immobile piece symbols-

 M - Mummy

 Alabaster
 pB - Petrified Basilisk
 pG - Petrified Ghast
 pL - Petrified Leaf Pile
 pA - Petrified Go Away
 pW - Petrified Wounded Fiend
 pH - Petrified Human
 
 Obsidian
 pb - Petrified Basilisk
 pg - Petrified Ghast
 pl - Petrified Leaf Pile
 pa - Petrified Go Away
 pw - Petrified Wounded Fiend
 ph - Petrified Human


 Square types-

 Empty squares - empty squares, no special notation needed 
 Ghastly squares - determined relative to Ghast, no special notation
needed
 Basilisk squares - determined relative to Basilisk, no special notation
needed
 Multiple occupancy squares - occupants are listed on the first two lines
of square.  There is room for six in each square of the diagram.
 Ichorous squares -  are denoted by an 'I' in the lower left corner,
followed by the number of plies remaining until ichor evaporates. In play,
when a Wounded Fiend moves, the player moving puts 'I 10' in the
appropriate squares.  Each turn, the player on move decrements the numBer
by 1 until it reaches 0 and the ichor has evaporated.
 
 Example -

   +------+
   | M wpb|
   |pH    |
   | I  6 |
   +------+
 This square contains:
  Mummy
  Obsidian Wounded Fiend
  Petrified Obsidian Basilisk
  Petrified Alabaster Human
  Ichor that will evaporate in six plies (three turns)


 Notating moves -

 This is done the normal way, except indicate petrification by Basilisk,
engulfment by Leaf Pile, or destruction by Zombie like captures.  When a Go
Away pushes pieces, just list the moves as if the pieces had moved
voluntarily.  Also indicate any petrification, engulfment, or destruction
as a result of the push.

25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.