I see your point about the rook not being named a major piece, I will revision the article after I finish the preset and change the terminology. Moreover by definition of being able to checkmate solely with the help of the king the champion is a major piece in it's game and the aanca is not. Although the aanca is a much stronger piece in many game situations.
If proven a bad idea I admit that the advantage disadvantage system should be scraped despite being rare in it's application, and I had further criticism (initially the 100 moves rule was 150 for example) on this system.
Vickalan's idea was to use to point system only in the 100 moves (at the time 150) rule, as in threefold repetition the stronger side should get out and try to prove it's advantage. I think here if a player lost 2-3 pieces and then sneaked the queen and managed a perpetual doesn't deserve a draw. In the 100 rules move think at an endgame king+elephant+elephant+zebra+camel vs king+rook. It was probably a thrilling game and it ends an a draw after 100 moves. The superior side should get a small advantage in my opinion.
I don't see a problem that the goal is not always to checkmate (shogi has a similar points counting rule but it's only for win/draw). Checkmate is the main goal anyway. I guess as an engineer I am more comfortable with a more gradual measurement of disparity between players. I am also afraid of a draw death (even though for a larger that orthodox game that's unlikely as Greg Strong pointed out a few days ago). I probably take it to far but if this game becomes played (I sort of doubt it) players become more closely matched and more draws may occur. So there is merit in my view for a gradualization of the outcome closer to a draw. I'm sorry if a exaggerate a bit with that I am thinking it the whole way through as I strive to be a perfectionist. I honestly doubt my 2 games will become such success but an inventor should take care of possible long term problems.
Anyway nobody implies we should agree on all game rules. I think unless challenged with very hard counter-arguments the advantage/disadvantage possible outcome stays. It's my game in the end, and part of this is, admittedly, my thrill of applying my own idea. On the flip side I've said I'll ask for assistance in order to improve on (Grand Chess+Omega Chess)/2 , so if the endgame conditions are such a bad idea I'm screwed. Oh, my... in what have I got myself into... :).
Fergus,
I see your point about the rook not being named a major piece, I will revision the article after I finish the preset and change the terminology. Moreover by definition of being able to checkmate solely with the help of the king the champion is a major piece in it's game and the aanca is not. Although the aanca is a much stronger piece in many game situations.
If proven a bad idea I admit that the advantage disadvantage system should be scraped despite being rare in it's application, and I had further criticism (initially the 100 moves rule was 150 for example) on this system.
Vickalan's idea was to use to point system only in the 100 moves (at the time 150) rule, as in threefold repetition the stronger side should get out and try to prove it's advantage. I think here if a player lost 2-3 pieces and then sneaked the queen and managed a perpetual doesn't deserve a draw. In the 100 rules move think at an endgame king+elephant+elephant+zebra+camel vs king+rook. It was probably a thrilling game and it ends an a draw after 100 moves. The superior side should get a small advantage in my opinion.
I don't see a problem that the goal is not always to checkmate (shogi has a similar points counting rule but it's only for win/draw). Checkmate is the main goal anyway. I guess as an engineer I am more comfortable with a more gradual measurement of disparity between players. I am also afraid of a draw death (even though for a larger that orthodox game that's unlikely as Greg Strong pointed out a few days ago). I probably take it to far but if this game becomes played (I sort of doubt it) players become more closely matched and more draws may occur. So there is merit in my view for a gradualization of the outcome closer to a draw. I'm sorry if a exaggerate a bit with that I am thinking it the whole way through as I strive to be a perfectionist. I honestly doubt my 2 games will become such success but an inventor should take care of possible long term problems.
Anyway nobody implies we should agree on all game rules. I think unless challenged with very hard counter-arguments the advantage/disadvantage possible outcome stays. It's my game in the end, and part of this is, admittedly, my thrill of applying my own idea. On the flip side I've said I'll ask for assistance in order to improve on (Grand Chess+Omega Chess)/2 , so if the endgame conditions are such a bad idea I'm screwed. Oh, my... in what have I got myself into... :).