[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by joejoyce
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Jul 1, 2006 12:22 PM UTC:Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Jul 1, 2006 05:50 PM UTC:I would like to add one lesser attribute. If the pieces could somehow represent the moves they make, that would be nice. For example, the squirrel move is a combo of the alfil, dabbabah, and knight. Of course, my current example of that piece looks like Dumbo on wheels, complete with pillbox circus hat. But I believe the idea is a good one. I don't recommend pieces like those in Navia Dratp, where the moves are shown schematically on the piece base, but the use of common symbols combined [hopefully better than Dumbo on wheels] in an artful manner would make it a lot easier [certainly for me] to concentrate on the game, and not keep having to look up piece moves [I play bad enough], which is very distracting; or worse, mistake one piece for another. Some games [like Postal Chess] or piece sets [like the Pizza Kings] need unique themed pieces, but this is much more the exception than the rule.
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Jul 11, 2006 08:14 PM UTC:To answer your question [copied from the page Rules of Chess]: Pawns that reach the last row of the board promote. When a player moves a pawn to the last row of the board, he replaces the pawn by a queen, rook, knight, or bishop (of the same color). Usually, players will promote the pawn to a queen, but the other types of pieces are also allowed. (It is not required that the pawn is promoted to a piece taken. Thus, it is for instance possible that a player has at a certain moment two queens.) The information is there under the section on pawns. So, you may promote a pawn to a lost piece, but it is not required that there be a lost piece available to promote a pawn.
Grand Shatranj. Grand Shatranj. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 12, 2006 07:11 PM UTC:Thanks for the ratings. I'm especially glad you like the low starting piece density, as that's part of my design philosophy. Either that, or it reflects my inability to come up with more pieces.
Atlantean Barroom Shatranj. Atlantean Barroom Shatranj Rules. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 12, 2006 07:46 PM UTC:Heck, no! More variants, I want more. Actually, the shatranj variants I've posted here pretty much give an overview of the territory set out in MS and 2Large. But there are obviously more games in the mix. For example, the Sliding General, a 2-step queen, is a very interesting piece that is not [yet] used. And the knight-ferz and knight-wazir are languishing in obscurity; yet they are very dynamic pieces, each worth about a rook, with interesting abilities and limitations. Perhaps there is a game hiding between Grand Shatranj and ABS that someone [maybe even you or I] will find and post. In the meantime, I'm still looking at more short range jumpers; can Lemurian Shatranj be far behind?
Grand Shatranj. Grand Shatranj. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 12, 2006 10:56 PM UTC:Why 'mini-rules' in the title? Well, there are several reasons. The first is that preset pages done by the editors all have mini-rules included on the page, and I thought it was a very good idea. It is very convenient to have a condensed rules set readily available to the players. Unfortunately, I am not very computer literate. [I admit to being born B.C. - before computers. The slide rule I used throughout my college career I keep under an abacus on my encyclopedia bookshelf.] I got my first home computer [a Franklin Ace 1200] in 1984, and taught myself some DOS, with which I did well, until everything became Windows. So I learned Windows. They changed it. I re-learned Windows. It changed again. I re-relearned it, and it changed again, and again, and yet again. It got tiresome, and went beyond annoying. Eventually my son [soon to be 33] took Computer Science, so I have him do most of the computer work. As he couldn't care less about chess, he does the minimum, for which I am grateful, but this leaves me with no understanding of what he's done. I understand the concept of indexing, but PHP is just random letters to me. It is not worth it to me to keep learning and re-learning something in which I have no intrinsic interest. What I am interested in is game design. Now, I posted Two Large Shatranj Variants without any presets to see how they would be accepted. [Somewhat of a misnomer, as the 'two' refers to the number of different boards used, not the actual number of variants, which number many thousands.] People seemed to have a positive reaction to the games, so I eventually prevailed upon my son to do presets for me. Now, each preset is only a tiny piece of the whole series, so I felt it appropriate to provide an extract from the 2Large rules for the players convenience, rather than having them wade through the entire 2Large posting and try to figure out just which pieces and rules they were using. [For an excellent example, please look at the promotion rules in 2Large and in the presets.] These small subsets of the rules I thought would validly be named 'Mini-Rules', since I believed the term fit standard English usage, and it fits how I see the preset games, as mini-versions of 2Large, as well as following what I took to be common usage on site. Call it designer prejudice. I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading, and I was most definitely unaware of the specific, technical nature of the minirules files. I only knew I couldn't do them the way the editors do, and that they are an obvious plus to any game that the designer wishes to have played. So I had my son create these to my specifications. Now, I will be happy to change the names of the Great and Grand Shatranj preset pages, as long as I don't lose any votes for games to be included in Tournament #3, as Jeremy Good did when he re-submitted his Royal Pawn game [His votes for RP Chess went to zero. I would prefer that not happen to my games just before the end of the voting. Some are doing fairly well.]; and I do not wish to lose the comments and ratings for each one, such as they are. I would suspect that, too, would happen although I have no real way of telling without trying. So, what should I do to rectify this? I am most willing to do whatever is necessary. Just let me know. Joe
Alfaerie Expansion Set 4. More Alfaerie graphics![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Jul 13, 2006 05:38 PM UTC:Thank you, Christine and David. I really appreciate the Alfaerie Graphics; and that anyone can expand the set is truly excellent. The pieces are generally clear, simple, and distinctive; this allows for good visualization of new pieces. The icons are easy [for my son] to manipulate and extend. So they are easy to tinker with, for which this very much a non-artist thanks you. I believe this graphics set has a lot to do with what appears to be the increasing popularity of variants. It's attractive, generally consistent, useful and flexible. I cannot rate this, I am disqualified by having pieces in the set, but the complete Alfaerie Graphics set is beyond excellent, and is a public service for us game geeks. Thank you again. Joe
Poll number Preference Poll for Third Game Courier Tournament. Sign up for the 3rd Game Courier tournament by voting in this poll.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Jul 17, 2006 05:23 PM UTC:I do have a question. On what basis was it decided that Grand Shatranj and Great Shatranj are *very similar*? Admittedly, I am the designer; however, I made it a point to make the games as different as possible, and do not at all see that they are very similar. Certainly they are at least as different as FIDE and Capablanca's Chess, if not more so. What criteria were applied to make this detemination? Joe
Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Jul 17, 2006 07:19 PM UTC:Thank you, Fergus. I appreciate the very prompt separation of Great and Grand Shatranj. I do strive to present named games that are noticeably different, with relatively minor differences handled by presets on the same page under the same name. While I would like to argue that 'no one' has the best solution with option B, I see your previous response precludes that. So I will have to be satisfied with what I have. [BTW, I dropped 'Mini-Rules' from the titles.] I am interested in your statement that the total number of games in the tourney will be 1.2 times the number of players. One of the things I liked about the last tournament was the choice of games the players got; it seems there will be a bit less choice for this tournament. Is there a particular reason for this, or is it just that you wish to try something a little different? No complaint, just curiosity on my part. Finally, thank you for running this tournament. While many of us moan, groan and complain, we still seem to sign up.
Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Jul 17, 2006 11:57 PM UTC:I would like the wider range of choices available for the tourney, given there is no overriding reason to restrict them. [As long as there is not a problem, I'd almost always opt for more.] Also, I was looking over the poll, and noticed that Berolina Chess is tied to the Avalanche rules page.
Grand Shatranj. Grand Shatranj. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 19, 2006 02:30 AM UTC:Both the Lightning warmachine and the Oliphant may move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares. They may slide 1 then leap 2, or leap 2 then slide 1 to go 3 squares in a straight line. They may only capture one piece. They capture by replacement, and must stop on the square of the captured piece, making them short-range riders. I am not yet ready to contemplate double-capturing pieces. Thanks for the questions, I will change the rules page to clarify these questions. I suppose this means I need to do the same for Atlantean Barroom Shatranj also. A zigzag general that can capture twice in one move has to be one of the most powerful short-range pieces ever devised. Thanks for the idea, I think. Not sure how or if it might be used, but what a piece! A very scary piece. You will get credit for giving me the idea if I can find a place to use it.
Poll number Preference Poll for Third Game Courier Tournament. Sign up for the 3rd Game Courier tournament by voting in this poll.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 19, 2006 01:07 PM UTC:Fergus, if I had my preferences, I'd like to see Grand Shatranj D, Great Shatranj D, and Modern Shatranj, in that order. I made the large variants with rooks strictly to accomodate those who feel more comfortable using rooks in shatranj-style games. Also, I playtested David Paulowich's Mir 36 and I can state that the game has a totally different character than Modern Shatranj. This is your tournament, and while I may complain that the rules changed between the first and second votes, it is clear that the final form will be what you decide. I would argue that, in general, chess variants tend to be [very] overpowered. I truly believe that MS, GtS, and GdS are all very fine games that explore what almost nobody has looked at, variants with short and intermediate-range pieces, in a systematic way. What you do with my games may well be moot, as they are mostly languishing in last place, but one thing I would ask is that you keep MS and David's fine Mir variants apart. I think that those games should stand or fall strictly on their own merits, and not have to compete with each other. David and I have very different, maybe opposite, styles, and should the highly unlikely happen, I would not want both of his games knocked out by one of mine. I would rather you lumped all my games together than let that happen. Joe
Chieftain Chess. Missing description (16x12, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Aug 3, 2006 04:53 PM UTC:I hope this will answer your specific questions:
* No piece may ever move unless it is activated by a chieftain which
has to be within 3 squares of it at the start of the move.
* Each chief may activate 1 piece per turn. An activated piece may
move outside the 3-square activation range of the chief which activated
it, or any other [friendly] chief.
* No piece may move more than once per turn.
* Once a piece has finished its move, it becomes inactive again. It
cannot move in a subsequent turn without being re-activated by a chief.
In general, activation is different from movement. Every piece may move.
Only chiefs may activate. Think of each piece as a warrior in a small
band. Now add bureaucracy and attitude. The chiefs [the leaders or bosses]
are the only ones who will do anything on their own. Each chief has time to
do one thing per turn. The chief can do it him or herself, or can yell at
somebody close enough and make them do it. The other piece types don't do
anything unless they are forced to. Once they are out of yelling distance
[3 squares], they don't hear any orders, and do nothing. They would
rather die than move without being yelled at. Okay? ;-)💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Aug 3, 2006 06:06 PM UTC:Knight-Wazir (NW) - This piece combines the moves of the knight and the wazir. It moves one square orthogonally, then optionally, one square diagonally outward. It jumps any piece in its way. Knight-Ferz (NF) - This piece combines the moves of the knight and the ferz. It can be considered to move one square diagonally, then, optionally, one square orthogonally outward. It jumps any piece in its way. One piece, no matter how it may move in its turn, requires only 1 activation, and thus, 1 chief to activate. Jeremy Good and I are putting together a modified piece set for the variants among the pieces. When it's ready, new piece icons and at least one new preset will be added. The new icons will differentiate among the piece-type variants as much as practical. Each icon will be paired with its own movement instructions. My apologies for releasing what seems to be an inadequate set of rules. I tried to compress them too much. And the concept of command control, where a commander gives orders to troops, also needed to be elaborated on. I'll try to not make the opposite mistake in the re-write.
Game Courier Developer's Guide. Learn how to design and program Chess variants for Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Aug 4, 2006 12:55 PM UTC:I am attempting to change the name of my recent submission from 'Chieftain Chess with Preset' to 'Chieftain Chess', now that a preset page is available. I am also trying to indicate it is multi-player, with 1-4 players per side, for a total of 2-8 players. I seem to be having 2 problems. First, when I try to do the name change, I get this error message: Error performing query: Duplicate entry 'MSchieftainchess' for key 1 Second, is there a way to indicate a range in the number of players per side? I will put in '1-4' and '2-8', but what comes up is '1' and '2'. Any information or assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Aug 4, 2006 05:18 PM UTC:David, thank you very much. It's gratifying to know that it's not *always* me when it comes to computer-type problems. Now, if only my son would believe that... And thanks for looking into making the number of players more flexible. I also appreciate the efforts that have already been made to make indexing more useful for people like me. [Finally, I was thinking of making a mixed 2D-4D version of this game...]
Chieftain Chess. Missing description (16x12, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Aug 9, 2006 02:25 AM UTC:Gary, thanks for the comments. Jeremy Good has been kind enough to create some pieces for me. Using the new piece icons as the basis, I've re-written the rules. I hope you, Christine, and everyone else find these clear, concise and understandable. So much for attempting to write 'relaxed-fit' rules. Obviously, they were too loose. Too much of the underparts were showing. I'll try to avoid such an unseemly display in the future. [Or show off better underparts, at least.]
Leapers Chess. Decimal variant with additional leaping abilities for each of the pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Aug 11, 2006 12:30 AM UTC:Looks quite interesting. Just downloaded the ZRF, and will attempt to play it soon. The pairing of leaping ability with longrange pieces makes for some fairly powerful pieces. Are the augmented, in both senses of the word, pawns a way to keep the pieces from running amok and pacing the game, or is there more to the 2:1 pawn ratio? It also pushes the starting density up to 60%, and puts the 2 sides 4 empty rows apart. Can't rate this other than interesting just yet, but I'd like to try a game sometime.
Alfaerie Expansion Set 5. Many new designs, several shogi variant based pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 01:45 AM UTC:Hey, Gary. I had that problem, with the hero and other pieces. The trick is to put the designator in square brackets in your preset. So the standard knight is n or N, and this is typed into the appropriate spot in the preset editor. The hero used in Lemurian Shatranj would be: [_JG_ldw] or [_JG_LDW] Typing this in the appropriate spot will put the hero where you want on the board. My son looked it up in the Game Courier instructions.
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 03:06 AM UTC:Yes, but there are a few games that give the total piece set, though you have to search for some pieces. A Logical Follow-up to the Duke of Rutland's chess is one such game, and I believe there are more.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 04:25 AM UTC:There's one more piece I'd like to get into the expanded alfaerie set, the Lightning warmachine from Grand Shatranj, designated 'L' in the Grand Shatranj Alfaerie piece set. Whenever you can get it in, thanks. It would be found here: http://www.chessvariants.com/graphics.dir/alfaerie-plus/wdababbarider.gif
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 03:07 PM UTC:Thanks, Christine - must have missed it in the Alfaerie Many set - not surprising, as neither my son nor I could find the GUard piece for 10 minutes in that set. Joe
Separate Realms. Pieces capture like normal FIDE pieces, but have limited moves that only take them to part of the board when not capturing. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Aug 19, 2006 07:42 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★This is a very nicely twisted variant of chess. A few simple rules changes have produced what is definitely a tournament-quality game. There are only 2 things I could wish for: new graphics for the pieces, and a larger companion. I'd truly love to see seperate realms on a larger board. (Could I be greedy and ask for 12x12?) Congratulations to the designers; they deserve them.
ChessV
. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2006 01:51 AM UTC:Excellent! I've enjoyed playing this; that it plays opening pawn moves alone puts it ahead of Zillions. The only part I don't like is that it keeps beating me. Great to see this out. Thanks. Joe ps: love the shatranj section!
Game Courier Tournament #3. Vote for which games should be in the third Game Courier tournament.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Sep 12, 2006 10:59 PM UTC:Games I'd prefer not to play: 1 - Neutral King 2 - Crazyhouse 3 - Berolina 4 - Moderate Progressive 5 - Avalanche 6 - Anti-King II rated from 1 [maybe I could play this reluctantly] to 6 [rather eat glass]. Hey, David, Modern Shatranj is the only game I've played to any extent I've never lost; you trying to ding me in the tourney? ;-)
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.