Comments by trojh

Note: in this problem, it can be determined that the Black king no longer has his "move-like-a-knight" privilege. Which seems to be essential to the solution; otherwise, White would be moving into check on his second move.

What piece did Black move last? Obviously not a pawn (the pawns haven't moved yet), so he must have moved his king. Moreover, he must have moved his king from e8; all other nearby squares are either occupied or are adjacent to the White King. So Black just moved his king out of check from the pawn on d7; thus, the Black king can no longer move like a knight.

Also, I think this problem is cooked; 1.Gxb7 seems to work just as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Joseph DiMuro

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see why game 4 was a draw. At the end,
Black had K+R+P against White's K+R. Does Black really have no chance to
win at that point?

On a hex board, a dabbabah (a 2-square orthogonal leaper) can only reach
one-fourth of the spaces on the board.

Color a hex board in four colors, such that a dabbabah can only move to
hexes of the same color.

Claim: given two hexes, if there are two different paths of the type
Charles Gilman described between those hexes, then those hexes are the same
color. And every leap between two hexes of the same color is an even-SOLL
leap. Thus, Gilman is correct.

Proof left to the reader. :-D

Cameron, think back to when you first learned to play chess. Did you think the knight's move was intuitive right away, or did you have trouble visualizing it at first?

And how about the bishop's move? If you say that one is intuitive, just imagine trying to visualize the bishop's move if the board wasn't checkered. I know it would be tough for me. But I'd get used to it after a while.

I wouldn't mind playing a chess variant involving the Rose. (I'd like to try Golden Age Chess on a Really Big Board one of these days.) I agree, the Rose's move would be tough to visualize at first. I'd get used to it.

I normally wouldn't be picky about typos, but I think it would be much
better to offer Kasparov a "warm welcome" than a "worm welcome". :-D

One of these things is not like the others, indeed. Out of the five
options, only the first is spelled correctly. :-D

Ignoring that easily-correctable issue, I'm leaning towards #5.

John: I've got you beat by one year. Glad to know I'm not the only one in
the "old fogies" club. :-D

Of all the options you listed, I think the last one (making the scale -2 to 2, then summing all the scores) is the best one. But for another option, here's how they do it on BoardGameGeek:

People can rate games on a scale from 1 to 10. Games are then ranked based on the average score they receive. But to avoid having a game with a single score suddenly becoming the top ranked game, each game also receives a set of "dummy scores", which are included in the average.

Here's how it could look here: our rating scale is from 1 to 5. Let's say each game starts off with 20 "dummy scores" of 3. (I picked 20 off the top of my head; I have no idea what number would be the best choice.) Then if one person rates a game 5 (excellent), that gives an average of (20*3+1*5)/21=3.095. If another game receives 10 ratings of 4 (good), that gives an average of (20*3+10*4)/30=3.333.

What do you think?

I'm glad someone posted a comment about Fusion Chess, because it reminded me that I've been wanting to post a comment of my own for some time. I keep forgetting to do it. Might as well do it now.

Based on my experiences with Zillions of Games, I think that the Dragon King is too tough to checkmate (and, perhaps, so are the Pope and Eques Rex). I think I can easily force a draw in this game by forming a Dragon King, and then exchanging material as quickly as I can. (My only fear is getting checkmated while the board is still cramped.) I don't care if I'm way behind in material at the endgame, because it would take a ton of material to checkmate a lone Dragon King.

Now, this is just coming from my experiences with Zillions of Games; I haven't played Fusion Chess against a human before. Anyone want to play against me on Game Courier, and try to prove me wrong? :-)

I clicked on the link for the 32-bit version, but I got the 64-bit version instead (which doesn't work on my computer). Am I doing something wrong?

My understanding is that the description of the game is a hoax, but the game itself is not. It's normal chess where, with each move you make, there's a 50% chance of your move being replaced with a move chosen at random from all legal moves.

Sean Bass, are you still watching this thread? Still looking for a copy of Meta-Chess? I have good news and bad news for you.

First, the good news. I own a copy of Meta-Chess, and I don't need to go hunting for it. I've got full access to it. :-)

Now the bad news.

1. The book wasn't bound 100% correctly. There are a few places where a page is in the wrong place or missing completely. The book came that way. You might need both Jean-Louis Cazaux's copy and my copy to reconstruct a complete book.

2. Some pages are slightly stained along one edge. The book did NOT come that way. Public service announcement: never leave a book (or anything else, really) on the floor of your car. Car fluids can leak and seep up through the carpet. O.O

3. I'm pretty busy these days; I'm a college professor doing remote teaching. Not much time for mailing or digitizing things. Plus, I'm pretty attached to this book; not sure I'd want to give it up. Digitizing it? Could work. I'd normally say "what about copyright", but John William Brown might not mind his work being preserved if he's not selling it anymore.

Long story short: your quest isn't over, but at least you now have a second lead. :-) We can talk over email; my email address is in my profile.