Comments by joejoyce

The replacement of the knights with elks basically *had* to work, as would
the rook-elk swap [similar pieces in the same spot]. The replacement of
bishops by elks is a bit cludgier, but gives a hint of a theme. Replace
the bishops with elks and the queen with a chancellor (R+N). Give the king
a knight escape move instead of castling. Now you've got a bishopless game
that is fairly close to FIDE in power - if your elk valuation is correct,
within roughly a pawn's worth of power. [This might make for a decent
CWDA army.] It may not be the best of games, but it's a coherently themed
game, and showcases the elk equally as well as the FIDE version. You'd
offer your 'Elk Chess' as a training game for the elk, and a themed game
as the 'actual' variant. This way you're sneaking 2 games in under the
guise of 1, and you've done what you wanted. You showcased the piece, and
you got the alternate FIDE game into the mix. But you've also taken that
one step more and designed a game as well as a piece. I believe you
commented somewhere that you thought the elk and scorpion would work well
together. Come up with another new piece or three, [maybe the
squire/jumping general/mammoth could fit in] and give us a new game. Of
course, if I had some really cool new pieces that worked great in FIDE, I
wouldn't listen to some old guy who wants it done another way either. ;-)
Keep the pieces coming anyhow. Enjoy

Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess
page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe

Alfred, I think we've been dismissed. But that's okay, because I've been
thinking. I've come up with a couple new pieces. I'm calling them the
NightRunner and the BishopRunner. The NR moves like a knight or a rook,
depending on the color of the square the piece is on. There are, of
course, two complimentary types. The BR moves like a bishop or a rook,
depending on whether the number of squares the piece last moved was even
or odd. Again, there are complimentary types. I like these pieces, I think
there's a great future for them. I'm going to add them to my Jumping
General, a new piece I discovered last year. It slides 1 or jumps 2 in any
direction (orthogonally or diagonally). The JG isn't going to be just big,
it's going to be mammoth!
Now just between you and me, Alfred, I was inspired by your idea, but I
don't know whether or not to give you any credit. After all, I expanded
on the idea and made it uniquely my own. What's that? Eric Greenwood's
Squire is my jumping general, and he used it in Rennaissance Chess over a
quarter century ago, and it's still being played? Well, maybe he might
get some credit.

I put it up to all. What does everybody think? Credit, or no credit?

James, you're right. I argued emotionally instead of logically, and
created a public display of irritation and bad manners. I hereby apologize
to everyone. I should not have done it. I will do my best to avoid such
things in the future. Joe

Mats, I must start with an apology. My statement was emotional and rather
over-the-top, instead of reasonable. I'm sorry. I should not have posted
that statement. I was wrong to do so. And my display of bad manners makes
my arguments about your conduct far more difficult to prosecute either
successfully or comfortably. 
Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain where our differences lie. I will
copy some of the CV comments:
2006-05-30	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	Joe, I followed your
suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's
implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I
think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with
the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I
don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
2006-06-01	Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce	None	
Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess
page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not
convinced
that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the
Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They
can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I
later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead
and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this
variant
works anyway. Time will tell.
--Mats [end of quotes]
Quite a change in attitude in a very short period of time. Another quote:
2006-06-02	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of
replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before
you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already  told. But
when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it
as a variant. [eoq]
If the variant is that trivial and you had already investigated and
dismissed it, why include it in your game? Especially without noting its
poorness? If it was worth including in the game, it was worth crediting.
You are trying to have it both ways. I object to that general attitude.
Further, you have changed your page to include references  and links to
everyone but me - thanks! That was a good laugh. (Seriously, I did laugh;
it reminded me so much of work.) That you went back and changed your pages
after I made my comments says something about the relative merits of our
positions. 
Here, I must apologize again. That I implied you gave no credit at all was
wrong and misleading. This is where I went over the top. You did, when you
became aware of their existance, name the games that contained the Squire.
I will state here that I do not remember any designers names associated
with the games you credited on your Mammoth Chess page when I looked at it
a few days ago. Again, I state this is wrong. 
Cavalier expropriation of ideas and a reluctance to credit either sources
or original creators coupled with a dismissive and condescending attitude
first made me seriously consider saying something. But, finally, it was
your dismissive and condescending statements toward others that prompted
me to respond. Telling Alfred Pfeiffer to, in effect, run along and stop
bothering you as you no longer have the time to bother with chess was what
got me irked enough to write. Mr. Pfeiffer wrote a nice expansion of your
initial idea, adding details that clearly could enhance the game. You
said:
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you
could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes
they will.
--Mats [eoq]
Now run along home like a nice boy - not. I'm a New Yorker. I know when
I've been dissed, and when others have. I do not like to be in this
position, but, as it occurred in a public forum, I felt and still feel it
must be addressed publicly. In a forum like CV, all we have are our ideas
and our willingness to work. Everybody should be credited, no matter how
trivial the idea or how invisible the work. That everybody plays in good
faith should be a fundamental principle of this site. This is my main
position, and I have no hesitation in asking every member of this site to
weigh in on this question.
This post is already too long. While there is much more I wish to say, I
will sum up my 2 main points:
 I apologize for my improper emotional post, it should not have happened.
 Give credit where it is due, and it's due if you are aware, or should
be, of the existance of a reason to give it. 
Finally, I will say again that you are an excellent piece designer
(although I think you need to work a little on game design); and I'd much
rather we played nice together. 
 Joe Joyce

James, the Inspector piece should be short-range but unblockable;
effectively a Guard-Squirrel combo, say. After all, they're not always
around, but when they show, they come out of the walls. (Literally [for
non-postal people], there are secret passageways for the inspectors built
into post office buildings.)
Larry, the WELOJDGWAAK piece could be a customer. You'd probably need a
special capturing turn, where multiple capturing pieces could all move at
once. Possibly the piece might need to be totally surrounded to be
captured. So cornering a 'Gwaak would be a good idea, making it easy to
capture.
It should be a large variant; I suggest the Registry Clerk (the Keeper of
the Keys) as a power piece;  some more minor pieces like the On-Break
window clerk and the Route Inspector; and finally, the 204B*, possibly the
most dangerous piece of all, subject to blowing at any time.
My condolences on your experiences with the USPS, by the way. I've been
retired 3 years now, and the nightmares are starting to go away. There is
hope. And, no, you can't blast the jam out of a machine by running more
mail into it. Believe me, it's been tried by experts. I've seen it, and 
it's not pretty. And then you have to put each bit of remains into its own
 little plastic 'body bag' which says on its side how the PO is trying to 
fix this problem. Right! You ever see anybody working on it?
* 204B: an acting supervisor; in other words, a clerk or carrier who
probably wasn't doing their job anyway, so it doesn't hurt to take them
off the workroom floor...

How about we incorporate the spirit of the elk piece, and make our pieces
double-sided? One side: sane; the other: normal working conditions - okay,
no, but you could flip a piece to 'activate' it as a move. And if all
pieces had a sane and an insane side, you could get some good effects.
Maybe a shop steward could change the state of another piece.
The 204B thing is fair - the stress of having a real supervisor from
another office watching is enough to detonate many a 204B.
About here, I realized that most of these 'pieces' should be confined.
Just to keep this short, a final thought:
 Should the sides be Blue and Brown?

David, in general your proposal is excellent. I'd ask for 2 simple
modifications. 
Don't close out the general public even from your excellent 5-part rating
system. If you weight each member answer as 100 non-member answers, you
have effectively eliminated non-members from affecting the rating, but we
still get their comments. A 10:1 weighting would pretty much do the same
thing; and a 5:1 would actually give non-members a slight say in how
things are rated.
Add a '5 - Outstanding' to the numeric ratings. I think some games, such
as Alice Chess or Ultima, are so good that it's unfair to have the many
excellent games have to go up against them as a comparison for what
qualifies as excellent. Either that, or add a 'Very Good' category
between good and excellent. 
While the second proposal is just a 'splitter vs. lumper' argument, with
me favoring a couple more categories, the first proposal is something I
urge we accept. It should be easy to implement and leaves us open without
being vulnerable to hit-and-run opinions, or even a campaign by 1 or 2
people to praise or condemn particular games, because after 50 or 60
anonymous greats or terribles for any game, not only would an editor
notice and erase those posts, but, at 100:1, that's still only half an
opinion. 
Please leave the door open, even if only a crack.

Thank you, Fergus, for fixing the label on Shatranj of Troy. I hope more
will vote for it now. I admit to prejudice; I think this is a Gary Gifford
gem. It takes the concept of openings to a whole new level. That
overstuffed Trojan Horse piece feels like having a full candy dispenser in
your pocket when you were a kid. [Now, for Jared. ;-) ] The tactical and
strategic possibilities are immense. It's a definite chess-player's
game.
Another game I would like to see in the tournament is Jeremy Good's Royal
Pawn Chess. That single change does amazing things to the game, and to my
chess instincts at least. The Royal Pawn can literally eat itself to
death: a series of sacrifices can force the RP across the board into the
opposing army. Opening strategy is turned on its head; what you need is
more of a Closing strategy, to wall off and protect the RP. Armies are
very self-blocked, and players have to work through the flanks rather than
coming up the middle.
As for STIT, I didn't originally vote for it, but you convinced me to
vote to include it [even though if given a choice I will avoid it, as I am
not very good at Chinese Chess]. It's hard to argue with a good,
established designer who says: 'This is good'. And I've enjoyed your
games before, so... As for the 2 designs of mine that are currently [I
think] in, they're the 2 best choices in my opinion. I lean toward the
Dabbabah versions over the Rook versions as the games were always intended
to be short range, but there are obviously people who prefer the rooks.
[And saying this for real is a fantasy come true. Thanks to all the
voters.] 
I assume the specific setup will be similar to last time, in that we will
have a choice of games to play within the finalists; the goal being that
all players have at least half their games in common. I thought that was
excellent last time. Whatever, it's beginning to look interesting.