Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

a couple questions:

a standard chess set means one bishop of each color right?  i can't
choose to have two white-square bishops?

the rules don't say anything about captured bario pieces.  if one of my
undefined pieces is captured should i immediately define it?  or can i
wait?

I have already rated the game so am not repeating a rating here.  In regard
to the issue of two 'same-color square' Bishops I believe that should be
allowed.  The Bario intro states, '... one should be able to play this
game on a normal chessboard with the traditional set of chess pieces.' 
This still seems to allow for same-color Bishops and I think it makes the
game more interesting to allow this.  In regard to rules I would like to
see:
a) captured pieces are not defined until known by deduction
b) Bishops of the same color squares are permitted

i'm easy on the bishops rule so long as i know what it is.  

i agree with you on the other one as i think it can add a little strategy
to the game, probably in the second/third? rosters.

'The cycle is over after the last undefined piece has been defined by a
player and then simultaneously all the pieces fall back into their
undefined initial state and a new cycle begins.'

this could be interpreted a couple different ways as well - EITHER player
finishes defining, or BOTH players finish defining... it reads more like 
the latter, right?  although i can see nothing wrong with the former,
which would make things interesting - you could tactically end a cycle
quickly before your opponent did something.

whichever one is correct, if all the pieces are on the board, then it will
actually be the second-to-last piece to be defined which will finish the
cycle, because then the last is automatically known.

'The rules of castling remain the same although with logical extensions
with regard to the potentiality of pieces.'

i don't really know what these are.  FRC rules perhaps?

Here is an awkward Bario likelyhood: Suppose we have a White Queen and a
White Bishop a Knight-move away from the Black King.  Now suppose Black
makes the last (or second-last) Bario move so that all pieces are known. 
Cycle #2 begins and all Barios return to undefined disk status.  It is
White's move.  Could White now use his 'former Queen Bario' or 'former
Bishop Bario' as a Knight and take the Black King?  If not, could they
become Knights and move away from the Black King?  Or, would Black's last
Bario revelation be illegal because it is like moving into Check (but only
if White creates a Knight)?
Also, assume a Queen is off the board prior to Cycle #2.  When cycle #2
hits does a 'on-the-board' Bario get to be moved as a Queen?  It seems
this would be the case... but the rules do not address this issue.  I
think we somehow need to come up with an addendum that addresses the
several unknown issues so that cv players will be playing by the same
rules.  This will certainly be needed for a zrf version and for potential
tournament play.

My suggestion for castling would be as follows: the corner disk must not
have moved, and must have the potential to be a rook (castling will reveal
it to be a rook).

Pawn promotion is also potentially awkward. I propose a variant of the
Grand Chess rule (a pawn may not move to the last if the owner already has
seven quantum pieces, revealed or unrevealed, but may still give check). I
also propose that pawns promote revealed.

I would also note that this variant can be combined with many others, such
as Capablanca/GrandChess, Different Armies, or even Jetan (to practice the
mechanics, you could also go the other way and apply it to Los Alamos
Chess).

If a Queen is captured during one cycle, is it allowed to re-appear during
another?  Or must it only be recovered through promotion?

I would think that its capture would remove its potential from the field,
and therefore it can only be recovered through promotion.  This would also
be applicable to the other potentials.

An observation: as long as a piece remains undefined, each quantum will
hold its potential.  So at the initial position, it is possible each
quantum expresses the power of an Amazon until it is actually moved.

Tony Quintanilla suggested that I add the following from my e-mail to him
earlier this week.  It consists of rule enhancements that Carlos Carlos
and I came up with during our game which is in progress as I wite this. 

Aa acknowledegment here to CarlosCarlos for his suggestions regarding
enhancing Bario rules. 

(1) The Barios for White and Black need to be different.  I suggest White
and Blue Cresents as they are part of the piece set in use and the board
looks quite nice when they are implemented. The reason they can't be the
same (like identical color disks) is that when cycle #2 starts all
non-pawn and non-King pieces revert back to Barios.  And when a future
cycle happens Barios will nolonger be neatly placed in a player's back
row.  A white Bario on d5 could be next to a Black Bario on e5... gray
disks just won't work. So we need to see who has the 'White' Barios and
who has the 'Black Barios' when the cycles begin.

(2) There needs to be a holding zone (for captured pieces and Barios). 
This allows captured Barios to sit and await their identity to be revieled
and prevents them from re-entering the game in future Bario cycles.
CAPTURED PIECES DO NOT RETURN (EXCEPT THROUGH PAWN PROMOTION, SEE RULE 8).
 Thus, for example, if Black captured White's Queen we would see that
Queen in the holding area and when cycle 2 or 3 started an
'on-the-board' Bario could not become a White Queen. (Note: see rule 8
regarding pawn promotion). 

The Chessgi Pre-set board will work for the purpose have having capture
zones.  

(3) A captured Bario need not be identified at the time of capture.  But
can be later identified while in the holding zone.  Thus, assuming white
has only 2 Barios left and that all pieces in the capture zone are known,
and assuming that white's Barios must be a Bishop and a Knight by process
of elimination (but we don't know which will be which).  Assume that Black
now captures one of these Barios.  It goes into the zone as an
'unidentified' Bario.  The remaining White 'on-board' Bario still has
the potential to be a Knight or a Bishop.  As soon as it moves its
identity is revealed, as is the identity of the captured Bario in the
zone.

(4) Castling is as in Fischer Random Chess.

(5) You may elect to have both starting Bishops on same color squares.

(6) If one Bishop is captured, then during a new Bario Cycle start the
remaining 'on-board Bishop is allowed to become a Bishop on a different
color square.  For example.  If white had a Bishop on g1 and a rook on h1,
after these became Barios he could move the h1 Bario to g2 and identify it
as a Bishop.  In the previous cycle he had a dark squared Bishop, in this
cycle he has a light-squared Bishop.

(7) Regarding 'Bario checks while on the move' at the beginning of a
cycle:  Three logical options quickly come to mind.  I prefer option A
first, then B, I don't care for C.

Introduction to the situation: When a new cycle begins the player on the
move may have a Bario which could now be identified such that it can
capture the opponent's King.  For example, Black King at g8, White Queen
at f6; pieces revert to Barios, White plays f6-g8 (he made his f6 Bario a
Knight).  Thus, in traditional chess we would have an illegal position at
the beginning of the Bario Cycle, i.e., Black in check with White to move.
 Three reasonable options are:

[OPTION A] The player in check is checkmated because he can't move out of
check, block it, or capture the checking piece as it is not his move.  In
essence, the player on the move could capture the King.  {I like this
best}  

[OPTION B] the player on the move identifies the Bario and announces
'Check' but does not move (the Bario check counts as the move in this
case); the player in check is now allowed to move out of Check or capture
or block the offending Bario. (Seems like a good alternative to rule A)

[OPTION C] The position is declared illegal (as if the one player moved
into check) and the player in check must make another move.  But what if
that was the only move that he could make? Stalemate? Option C seems to be
the most problematic of the 3. It could require a positional take-back.  (I
Don't care for rule C).

(8) Pawn promotion:  The Bario page states the use of only 1 chess set and
furthermore states you can only have one Queen, 2 rooks, etc.  But what
about pawn promotion?  I suggest that a pawn can promote to any friendly
captured piece (as in Freeling's Grand Chess.) Promotion could even be to
a Bario (in its unidentified state) if you had a Bario(unidentified) in the
Zone. 

**** A note in closing ****

I think these rule enhancements will enable players to enjoy Bario with
minimal confusion.  Until a time when rule 7 is standard (as to A, B, or
C), players should agree on one of the options at the start of the game. 
I strongly prefer option A.

Best regards to all.  Gary K. Gifford

My vote is for option A of rule 7. This is the most logical and simplest
interpretation for the potential of this game.

It will also encourage a player to cycle through the various pieces, in
order to achieve a positional advantage.  An opponent might have to be
quite wary of any opposing quantum within 'Amazon' range of their King.

But there does raise the potential of interesting positions.  For example,
a player only has the potential of one Rook and one Bishop for the two
remaining pieces.  And in this position, they might offer a checkmate as
un-defined.  The opposing King on the far rank, and the two pieces located
one on the far rank and the other on the next(classic two Rook checkmate). 
The opponent is unable to avoid a capture, though only one piece might
become the Rook both have the same potential.

I like the idea that ALL the quantum on the field must be defined before
the cycle starts again, and ALL fall back into the un-defined state when
the last one is actually moved(defined).

This allows a player to prevent an opponent from gaining advantage with
the end of a cycle by simply not moving one of their own pieces.

But I've also considered the potential that the quantum are neutral and
can be defined by either player under particular conditions.  Such as
proximity to other friendly pieces, preferably adjacent or possibly simply
defended by.  

Of course, once a player has defined all their possible pieces, the
remaining will then become the opponent's.  Yet not be readily
define-able because of the particular conditions.

Remember that the King will always be available to initiate a new cycle.

The mind wobbles.  Me like.

This is in regard to 2 other comments. (1) 2005-04-03 Mark Thompson had the
impression that '... when a player defines his last piece, all of THAT
PLAYER's pieces go back to being undefined' but also pointed out that
the rules don't actually state to limit it to the player's own pieces. 
CarlosCarlos and I had discussed this matter and came to agreement [at
least for for our game] that when the last Bario was known all pieces
would then revert to Bario.  This prevents a Bario reset from taking place
on every turn when a player is down to just two Barios (or 1 undefined on
board and 1 undefined in the holding zone).  In our way of playing when a
player is down to his last Bario it will be known and will therefore
remain seen as its last designated piece asignment... even if the other
player must reset his or her Barios.
(2) 2005-04-04 Larry Smith stated, 'I like the idea that ALL the quantum
on the field must be defined before the cycle starts again, and ALL fall
back into the un-defined state when the last one is actually
moved(defined).'   The rule Carlos Carlos and I are using does not
require that last Bario to move, only that it 'be defined.'  Thus, in
our game I currently have 2 Barios undefined.  If I move 1 the other is
known and CarlosCarlos can then define one of his remaining 2 Barios and
the new cycle will start (with all Barios being reset.  I do not want that
to happen so I am refraining from moving either Bario as moving 1 will
define both.  Larry Smith's rule idea would allow me to move one and
still avoid a new cycle, even though the remaining Bario would now be
known ( 'defined by deduction' in this case).

An un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.

Question: If all quantum are neutral, would a player be allowed to capture
them?  I would opt for this, it just would not result in the reduction of
either players' potentials.  Just in the reduction of possible quantums
of expression of the players' potentials.

As the players might have more potentials than possible quantum, the
deduction of a single remaining one might not be precise.  Meaning that it
would need to be moved to be realized.  Whether this is because of a
particular value or possible owner.

I slightly disagree with Larry Smith's comment which is: Quote: 'An
un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.'-End Quote.
I look at it this way, for example: If a remaining Bario can only be a
Rook.  Then it is a Rook.  When it moves, it will move as a Rook.  But,
for the sake of Bario one could make the rule read that 'The last Bario
must be moved and transformed into the intended piece, even if that piece
is already known.'  That would be a clear rule.  But they way the rules
are currently written, pieces need only to have their identity correctly
'defined.'  Thus, by simple logic we can correctly define a Bario when 2
exist, and 1 moves.  Is it any different than dropping a coin on a table
and being asked to define the 'face-up' and the 'face-down'?  If I see
Heads face up, I can define Tails as face down (also, I can point out this
is no trick coin.  In Bario we are using a standard chess set, so we know
the possibilities).  With the coin toss, as with 2 remaining Barios, there
is no need for me to see the final hidden item.  Labeling that hidden item
as as a 'quantum with potential' does not alter the simple reality of
the situation.

On a second note, Larry asks, 'If all quantum are neutral, would a player
be allowed to capture them?'  He then states, 'I would opt for this.'  I
agree with Larry 100% here. But in using his arguement from above, should
one really be allowed to capture a mere 'quantum potential?'

If a person 'knew' the coin, they might be able to surmise its potential
faces.  But if a coin is tossed by another person, there is also the
possibility of a two-headed or two-tailed coin. ;-)

Capturing a quantum does not reduce either players' potentials, just
reduce the possible number of expressions of these potentials on the
playing field.  By capturing a neutral quantum, a player not only reduces
their opponent's possibles but also their own.

Question:  If there are two quantum on the field and the player has two 
potential Rooks, would they both then be considered defined?  Thus ending 
the cycle rather pre-maturely.

I continue to advocate that all the quantum must be actually moved for a 
new cycle to begin.  Whether this cycle is predicated on one or both 
players.  If determined by one player, this should only apply to those 
quantum which are under their control.  This would allow the opposing 
player the opportunity to express all their potentials.  But does not 
guarantee such.

Of course, a new cycle can be initiated by the following:

1. One player has expressed all their potentials on the field.  Those 
particular quantum are re-cycled, or all the quantum are re-cycled.  (The
latter case would be very punitive for the player who has not had the 
opportunity to express all their potentials.  I would advocate the effect 
for the player's pieces, giving the opponent opportunity to gain 
advantage. This does not reduce the player's potential on the field, 
expect in the possible number of expressions.)

2. All the quantum have been defined and all quantum are recycled. (This 
might mean that the players have additional potentials in hand.  This 
could also be initiated by the capture of a remaining quantum when both 
players still have potential in hand.)