[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by John Lawson
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.....
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.
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.
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?
''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.
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.
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?
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.)
No, no, not a smaller font, PLEASE! Some of us use bifocals, and have enough trouble already.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
David -
<p>I thought you got $100k/year! Vanilla is always best in software.
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
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.