Jonathan Rutherford wrote on Fri, Aug 3, 2007 02:43 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I myself have givena stab at a 1 dimensional chess game. I called it Rutherford's 1 dimensional Shogi. Independently, I thought of the idea of Shogi pieces, and created what I feel was a very good game. Here is the link:
Sadly, it is apparent that my game has not gotten the attention I'd hoped, since I actually find it to fill the niche of 1-dimensional chess games quite well. As far as I can tell, playing with Zillions and going solo with my own board and pieces, it is a very enjoyable and surprisingly complex game. So why hasn't it grabbed attention like mono-dimensional chess or other small shogi and chess variants? I suppose it is because of my self aggrandizement. I wanted to be sure I always had the credit for my magnificent invention, so I named it after myself. I also didn't present the rules in a very interesting fashion. But give me some credit, that was several years ago, and I've aged some since then.
But at the heart, is it the fact that my little game is still too complicated? Is simpler better? I've never played LCC's game, but I commend his answer to simplicity without too much predictability. Perhaps a solution will one day be found, and a public-gripping one dimensional chess variant will finally take its deserved place.
I myself have givena stab at a 1 dimensional chess game. I called it Rutherford's 1 dimensional Shogi. Independently, I thought of the idea of Shogi pieces, and created what I feel was a very good game. Here is the link:
http://www.chessvariants.org/shogivariants.dir/1dshogi.html
Sadly, it is apparent that my game has not gotten the attention I'd hoped, since I actually find it to fill the niche of 1-dimensional chess games quite well. As far as I can tell, playing with Zillions and going solo with my own board and pieces, it is a very enjoyable and surprisingly complex game. So why hasn't it grabbed attention like mono-dimensional chess or other small shogi and chess variants? I suppose it is because of my self aggrandizement. I wanted to be sure I always had the credit for my magnificent invention, so I named it after myself. I also didn't present the rules in a very interesting fashion. But give me some credit, that was several years ago, and I've aged some since then.
But at the heart, is it the fact that my little game is still too complicated? Is simpler better? I've never played LCC's game, but I commend his answer to simplicity without too much predictability. Perhaps a solution will one day be found, and a public-gripping one dimensional chess variant will finally take its deserved place.