[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Index page of The Chess Variant Pages. Our main index page.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Pages that link to other sites created using PHP script, such as many pages linking to the Zillions-of-Games site, are not functional at this time. We are aware of this problem. Thank you for your patience until it is resolved.
On some pages, such as the Xorix Shogi page, there are problems with entering HTML code and getting it back wrong when trying to edit it. If I give an example here, this page will also get messed up, so I won't. You can use the htmlspecialchars PHP function anywhere where a TEXTAREA tag is returned, to make sure it doesn't replace entities incorrectly and mess up when entering a ending textarea tag.
The new markers for variants based on Xiang Qi and Shogi are a great idea, they reflect a growing trend in inspiration. However, there are some notable omissions from those marked for Xiang Qi. This marker should be added to Fergus Duniho's Eurasian Chess, my own Anglis Qi (which is even in the Xiang Qi variants directory!), and my offshoots thereof, as all these have a River inspired by Xiang Qi.
David Howe wrote on Tue, Mar 21, 2006 02:20 PM UTC:Thanks Charles, I will update those pages. I am sure there are probably more that I missed, but I think I got the majority of them.
I want to suggest that an extra rating be added. In between 'Poor' and 'Good' the rating of 'Average.' There are cases when I think a variant is 'Average' but it would be too harsh for me to say 'Poor' too caring to say 'Good.'
Very good idea! I think a 1-10 scale would be even better.
I agree that the ratings system could use more options. In my view it should be possible to give a neutral rating, as Jeremy Good suggests, and to give a negative rating that is not the worst possible rating. I would like to see something like Awful, Bad, Neutral, Good, Excellent (with numerical values of -2, -1, 0, +1, +2) or perhaps even Awful, Bad, Poor, Neutral, Fair, Good, Excellent (-3, ..., +3).
Thinking about this gave me the giggles: -6 Beneath Contempt -5 Contemptible -4 Loathsome -3 Hideous -2 Miserable -1 Awful 0 Bad 1 Neutral / Average 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Awesome 6 Incomparably Fine If one wanted to have additional layers, we could initiate additional categories, such as for 'originality.' A lot of games are original but have bad gameplay or unoriginal but with good gameplay (I am reminded of Ben Good's essay here about Omega Chess). Still other categories for 'fun-ness,' presentation, appearance. Categories could be optionally listed according to ratings and categories with overall negative ratings should perhaps be shelved into different sections of chess variants after each receives a fair number of votes from the community of users (as opposed to just members). There is one thing that disturbs me most of all about how people rate games and I fear that there is sometimes a tendency to judge games without playing them, trying them out. Sometimes, it is not necessary to playtest a game, but I think too often a game is judged too much by certain superficial aspects that have little to do with worth of gameplay (as with books by their covers.) If one has a separate category strictly for rating 'gameplay' (as opposed to other aspects), it could be a category that could only be filled out after actually playing the game. If nobody is willing to play a game, that would usually imply something about the nature of the game. I suggest that as long as a game maintains a positive gameplay rating, it not be shelved to the negative ratings section. Because a game can fail every other mechanism or gradation of analysis, but if people enjoy playing it, that's probably a pretty good test, in my opinion. 'Confusing presentation, ugly appearance, highly unoriginal concept, but amusing gameplay.'
I meant members as opposed to users, but probably there shouldn't be any restrictions on how a rating gets generated. I just meant mechanisms so that the value of a game isn't artificially inflated or deflated... By 'shelve' I just want to reinforce that I don't mean, be made unavailable, but just put in a separate section, and just as an optional way of listing according to rating.
i think the rating system in place is just fine, what is the point of 'neutral', what is that, it isn't even a rating, and isn't 'none' pretty much the same. i don't think it should be taken too seriously, if it is to be, non-members shouldn't be allowed to rate, and they are, which is fine by me too btw. to rate a game, as suggested a couple of comments down, as '-6 Beneath Contempt' and '-5 Contemptible' and '-4 Loathsome' and '-3 Hideous' and '-2 Miserable' etc etc is really bad taste, and i hope this site does not fall to this level. there are competitions to judge the best games anyway, or the games people nominate at least. who wants to rate a game 'beneath contempt' anyway lol
Like Christine, I think that Miserable and the stuff below is useless. What is the difference between a 'Hideous' and 'Loathsome' item? Is the 'Hideous' one better? I think both 'Hideous' and 'Loathsome' (and all those low rating) means that the item is has no value. If you think a submission is 'Loathsome', you should say what the problem is and so increase the chance that the next submission of the same inventor is not 'Loathsome'. Not add a negative atmoshpere by crying 'Loathsome!!'. About specifications like Playability: Neutral, Graphics: Good, etc. I think it is good enough if those specifications are said in the comment text. At least if I can say something between 'Good' and 'Poor', it should be fine. I think that ratings are less important than the comment text.
A link to SMIRF, developed by Reinhard Scharnagl, should be included under 'computer resources: programs that play chess variants'. SMIRF (English description) http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html
Thank you both for mentioning SMIRF here! It has become a free donationware playing some 8x8 and 10x8 variants, being supersets to traditional chess. But SMIRF still is in development. Reports on 'bad' experiences are welcomed if sent back directly to the author.
Hello,
Chesmayne Chess Dictionary link below...
http://homepage.eircom.net/~reidr1/index.html
Yours sincerely,
Raymond Reid [Dublin, Ireland].
PS: a link to the Variants web page has been included on the main index
page - enjoy! Yours is one of the best chess sites on the web!the user submitted work thing is great but however i have an idea in which you could enter a game idea and then other users could review it and make suggestions, but not changes this would make the site quicker maybe you could have an idea where someone enters a game idea and others enter more ideas for that game so it would multiple authors and everyone who was a contributor could help with the game.
David Howe wrote on Tue, Apr 10, 2007 09:18 PM UTC:I have created a Chess Variants Wiki, as a test to see if it would make sense to have a 'sister' site that would be more collaborative in nature. Any one interested should go to: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/ This will be a learning process for me, as I am not familiar with administrating or building Wikis. My impression is that the Wiki community itself does most of the work. Is that right? ;-)
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Apr 12, 2007 11:45 PM UTC:David, you have to authorize applicants to use your wiki. I signed up for the general site, but cannot post until you make me a site-specific member. I don't know anything about wikis, either, but played around with it a bit to get as far as I did. Interesting idea.
David Howe wrote on Fri, Apr 13, 2007 01:44 AM UTC:Thanks Joe. I hadn't realized I had to approve new members. I've set up the site so that a password can be used so that new members can avoid waiting for me to approve them. The password is cvp2007 The proposed chessvariants wiki is at: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/ It is not intended to replace chessvariants.org, nor is it intended to replace the chess variants section of the wikipedia. 3 people have joined up so far, but couldn't do anything because I hadn't approved them.
I'm very disappointed. Kokusai Sannin Shogi is a great game. It's nice to see the ideal 3 player game. But no one is permitted to rate or comment on the game. It's a crime, I tell ya!
The links to Game Courier ('Play' and 'Play by email' are broken. They point to play.chessvariants.com (which doesn't exist), not play. chessvariants.org
Also, 'Commented items' gives the message 'Error performing query: Column 'IsDeleted' in where clause is ambiguous'
Chesmayne Chess Dictionary - LINK. http://homepage.eircom.net/~reidr1/index.html
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.