Comments by MarkThompson

I think you could implement something in Zillions that would work like this
game. My plan would be, program 3 players: the computer has to play first,
then the user, then a 'neutral' player. The computer's moves would take
place on an invisible 'side' board, then the human player would make a
move (not having been able to see the computer's move: you'd have to
close the panel that shows the move notations), and then the 'neutral'
player would make his move, which would always be to transfer the
computer's moves from the invisible board to the visible one. If the
transfer caused conflicts the neutral player would have to do something
complicated to resolve them. 

You could never have the computer move second, or zillions would use the
information about the human player's move.

I don't think I've ever used the ratings on pages. When I see a game that
sounds interesting to me I read it, otherwise I don't. Do other people
search specifically for highly-rated games?

If no one pays any more attention to ratings than I do, it doesn't seem
worth getting upset over someone 'forging' a high rating for himself.

If the players are cooperating, why do you need two of them?

What would be wrong with putting a length-limit on user ID's to prevent
this problem from recurring? Perhaps characters like at and slash should
be prohibited as well.

'I think in this instance and only in this instance should you add all the
points of pieces captured in order to determine the winner.' John, you
could make a case that the chess variant played that way would be better
than Chess, and certainly you and your opponent have the right to play
that way if you like. The only caution I would advise is that, since those
are not the standard rules of Chess, you'd better make sure you and your
opponent both agree to those rules before you start, or else someone might
end up with hard feelings after the game is over. (This reminds me of the
aftermath of the 2000 election ...)

Another question would be whether people with high IQs are smarter than
other people. 

Chess and other mentally taxing games are said to ward off Alzheimer's,
which is somewhat related to your topic. I would guess, though, that if
there is anyone who doesn't enjoy playing chess, but plays it anyway in
hope of becoming smarter, then it won't work for that person.

Hmm. Some of these rules will probably need to be spelled out more. For
instance, it's illegal to make a move that results in insufficient mating
material. Does that mean that when either player gets down to a set of
pieces that can't be reduced further and still be able to force mate, his
remaining pieces become uncapturable? But won't the conventional ideas of
how much material is sufficient to force mating have to be revised, in
light of this invulnerability rule? And the fact that no move is allowed
that would result in stalemate might also affect the issue, I think.

More fundamentally, is it allowed for one player to be reduced below the
level where he could force mate, as long as the other one is not?

The 'drowning rule' in Congo is original and interesting, but it seems to
me that it makes it awfully difficult to get an attack going. If you push a
piece into the River, your opponent has the option of immediately making a
counterattacking move that needs an immediate defensive response, which
forces you to lose the piece in the River. It almost seems as though
you're better off waiting for the other player to attack and let him be
the one whose pieces drown. Does anyone know just how the good players
avoid this problem?

Someone once observed that one of the general problems in designing a good
strategy game is figuring out how to force the players to be aggressive,
since many games tend to favor passive play unless a mechanism is
introduced to force conflict. This makes me suspect that Congo might be a
better game if the drowning rule, which seems to discourage conflict, were
revised somehow: perhaps, a piece (or at least a Pawn) should be allowed to
stay in the River one turn without drowning? Any suggestions?

'most chess pieces are symmetrical along a vertical axis, and I simply
haven't the slightest idea how to do it with the software that comes with
Windows.'

In MS Paint, make sure you uncheck the option 'Draw Opaque' under
'Image', and then draw the left- or right-half of your image. Leave the
rest of the image white. Then select all, copy, and while the copy is
selected, choose Image / Flip-Rotate / Horizontal. That will flip the
'copy' to its own mirror-image. Then you can adjust its position with
the mouse to line up with the other half.

'And as far as piece names go, no need to justify your choices.  Piece
names are the prerogative of the inventor ...'

Not only that, but those of us who construct our own sets will ultimately
just call the pieces by the names we like, and switch to 'official'
names only for online discussions if needed. Just like players started
calling the elephant a bishop. For instance I always call a B+N a
Cardinal, regardless of anyone who wants me to call it an Archbishop.
And if I ever get around to making a Navia Dratp set, I'm gonna make a
LOT of changes ...

Like that poem, 'The Moon': 

'You say it's made of silver, 
I say it's made of cheese. 
For I am an American, 
And say what I d*** please.'

This seems like an interesting, simple idea. Since Knights gain so much
power as to be a problem, I wonder whether it would be good to play Diana
Chess (6x6 board with no Knights) with this 'One Double-Move' rule.