Single Comment

I dedicate this comment respectfully to Dr. Suess, for reasons which will soon become clear. I started to write this as an e-mail response to a player/inventor who suggested that I make changes to S.P.C. But I feel it will do more good here, as a comment for all interested to see. Because of the story associated with Shanghai Palace Chess, i.e., that of a wise man teaching three students a lesson so that they will better respect Chess, Shogi, and Xianqi, I feel that I must really leave it as it is. If it is not liked, then that perhaps is its purpose, to put more focus on the other three games. To change the Western, Chinese, or Shogi elements further would destroy the entire concept... would make the wise man's lesson meaningless. I know that the game is quite playable. And for the game tester and me it was quite fun. Enough so that we put Shogi and Xianqi aside for 2 months and played Shanghai Palace Chess face-to-face (on a real board) for 2 months before I submitted the game. To glance at it and think about it for a few minutes and then refer to it as a monster or a chaotic mess [in contrast to playing 20 or so games of it]well there is certainly a big difference regarding the basis of perception... sort of like reading a movie review and commenting, as opposed to actually going out to see the movie. I think Doctor Suess would see the negative comments regarding S.P.C. as the 'Green Eggs and Ham' syndrome. Would you play it on a train? Would you play it in the rain? I would not play it on a train. I would not play it in the rain. I do not like Shanghai Chess. I do not like it, I must confess. ,,,, Anyway, I think that about sums it up.