Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Charles Gilman already knows that in February 2000 S. Sirotkin sent a chess variant, called Herd. This two player game is played on a board of 7 by 7 squares. Each player has 1 King, 2 Knights, 2 Camels, 2 Bisons, and 7 Pawns.

Piececlopedia: Bison Hans Bodlaender wrote: 'It appears (infrequently) in fairy chess problems; Jelliss (see reference below) gives a mate in two by P. Monreal and F. Calvet from the Problemist, 1974 as an example.'

For all I know, the history of the Bison may extend back a full century. The Bison exists, and has value, independent of any disagreement between two individuals.

I just had to burst out laughing upon reading George Duke's comment. I
would say that the Falcon is indeed lame; it's 'lame' in the sense that
it cannot jump over intervening pieces. (It has multiple routes to each
destination square, but all can be blocked.) That is what is normally
meant when a piece is referred to as a 'lame piece'.

I don't think Charles Gilman was saying, 'Oh, that Falcon is so
lame...' :-)

I rate this below average, not because of any reference to the Falcon, but because it is just another random, untested game.  Charles Gilman posts games more than some people change their underwear.  And many of his 'games' have dozens of built-in variants.  He may well have the title of most prolific inventor at this point, but it doesn't mean anything when most of the games have never been played even once.  He doesn't even bother to make a Game Courier preset or Zillions-Of-Games ZRF.  It is not difficult to spew out random crap.  And this game is proved to be even more of a spur-of-the-moment invention by the fact that Charles Gilman, who prides himself on clever English usage in the naming of his games and pieces, can't even spell 'Civilization' correctly in the title.

Charles, please stop spaming this site with your random ideas.  This should be a forum for ideas that have some thought and playtesting behind them.  If you are determined to post hundreds and hundreds of variants, may I suggest that you buy your own web space in which to do it.

Well, 'civilisation' is the chiefly British variant of 'civilization', so it's ok. Generally, I do appreciate the ideas behind minimal and medial chess variants. Also, variants with large boards using simple short-range pieces are practicable because moves can be made fast. In such war-games no particular  move changes the situation much. It is rather the movement of groups of pieces that matters, that is, these games are rather territorial. But it's debatable if this should be labelled chess.

However, complicated large-board variants like this is a special phenomenon. None of them is practicable, especially not those that are three-dimensional. It seems like they aren't designed to be practiced. So I think the motif behind these creations must be either artistic or spiritual. Possibly they are mandala (mandorla) expressions. In the east, like in Tibet, monks and ascetics create complicated mandala paintings as expressions of spiritual wholeness. This could be a modern form of alchemy, where different ingredients (piece types) are put together in a cauldron (the board), which corresponds to the retort of the alchemist. I wrote something about this concept in the following link, under the 'Game Alchemy' heading.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/twinmove.htm
/Mats

It was perhaps remiss of me to use 'lame', certainly without prefixing it
with 'minimally'. I have updated the text to avoid any suggestion of
being pejorative, particularly as I intended the use of this Falcon in
homage to its inventor and chose it in preference to other pieces for
which the name has been used. This is my first use of the piece and I will
know what to say should I ever use it again. Mention of the Bison is
retained for a link to the Piececlopedia and because some readers will
know the Bison better.
	Whether I am the 'most prolific' is doubtful. It may be true in the
sense of fastest current posting rate, but I suspect that the contributors
with the largest total variants remain much the same ones as when I
tentatively submitted my first variant. Several updates posted since I was
told how to register them have also boosted my presence in 'What's New'.
Now that I am no longer such a newcomer I will try to reduce the frequency
of my postings.
	Perhaps I should add that I am also quite prolific in rejecting variants.
Be grateful to have been spared Morgana (shared-King variant designed for
the stillborn 45-square contest, rnqnr/ppppp/5/5/2K2/5/5/PPPPP/RNQNR),
SucChession (Pawnless variant with one more of each piece below King,
rqkqr/bbrbb/nnnnn/5/5/5/NNNNN/BBRBB/RQKQR), Plantation Chess (every so
often Pawns disappear back to behind the lines,
ppppp/ppppp/ppppp/rqk(rookknight)r/n(knightbishop)bbn/5/5/5/5/5/N(Knightbishop)BBN/RQK(Rookknight)R/PPPPP/PPPPP/PPPPP),
Extravagant Chess (a nondescript large variant,
rnnbbkbbnnr/1(rookknight)3q3(knightbishop)1/ppppppppppp/11/11/11/11/PPPPPPPPPPP/1(Knightbishop)3Q3(Rookknight)1/RNNBBKBBNNR)
Ecumenical Battschach (3d variant with numerous compound pieces), and
Highland Cathedral (inordinately large variant on a star-shaped hex
board).
	As to playability, my 'theme-heavy' variants are never just a matter of
'randomly' putting in pieces. It is true that they start by picking
pieces based on their names, but I do then put consideration into the
implication of their moves. Where I invent a brand new piece I try to give
it a move that helps gameplay as well as relating to the name. See what
I've added to notes. Note also that my 3 levels are the bare minimum to
give the Jackal its 'samewise' move as well as its 'contrariwise' one,
and its inability to reach the middle level is fair enough for a piece type
which is not one of the standard four.
	Funally, I am always open to any ideas that will improve any of my
variants.

I need to say that, in general, a lot of Chess Variant inventors are more interested in quanity than quality. When we moved the server, no one seemed to care that a number of variants were lost; I had to recover a number of variants from my own personal 2002 backup. In many cases, the inventors of the variants had lost thier .zrf file when making the variant.

I mean, we have thousands of variants here, yet I don't see people doing any play testing or trying to develop an opening stratefy for their variant. Instead, they move on to their next chess variant invention, leaving a variant with little or no testing, no real sense of strategy, and certaintly no opening library.

I have, I think, posted all of one chess variant invention here. I did a lot of work with the variant; in addition to countless Zillions games, I also played (and usually lost) a number of game courier games and even started to develop an opening library. I wish other inventors would care for their inventions as much, instead of making a new invention, maybe making a .zrf and a game courier preset, playing a couple of games, then walking off to invent their next game.

My next invention is one based on a board with both triangles and squares, and is based on ideas I have had since 1994. I may have a complete game by the 2007, or maybe not.

In the meantime, I will continue to play Schoolbook chess.

Again, this is not against any particular people but against an entire community who makes too many games and seems to care too little for each game they invent.

I wonder how hard it would be to add camel + bishop pieces to ChessV's 8x10 board?

- Sam

Gentlemen, this conversation is interesting and valuable, one that should be continued; but at this point it has nothing to do with Charles' game. Could we move it, either to 'Play this Game!?', which was established to continue it, or another of your choosing? I, for one, am fascinated by it, but in fairness to Charles and the people who read his work, I think changing the venue would be appropriate.
Thank you. Joe

Sam,
Thanks - I agree 100%.  You have done what an inventor should do.  I have been somewhat less diligent with my games, but at least I only have a few.
To answer your question, it is easy to add support for Camel + Bishop to ChessV, and I will do so.  I *really* need to release an update soon.  I have fixed a few critical bugs and added some major performance enhancements.  I just keep holding off hoping to make a 100% bug-free implementation, and that just never seems to happen :)

There is a bug in 'Update Index Information' that prevents any changes
EXCEPT modification date and modification text. Trying anything more
generates a duplication error message. In any case, the exact date of
invention is not an file that can be entered in that section.
	As to whether the date IS wrong for the redesigned variant, that is an
interesting question for which I would welcome the thoughts of a wider
range of readers. The use of 3 dimensions, theme, and basic choice of
pieces are the same, but applied in a hopefully easier-to-understand way.
Having been criticised so roundly and soundly for the T-shaped board,
Crocodile, and difficult Pawn rules I felt the need to, no, not invalidate
the comments but respect them and respond by removing these features. I
even included notes about it being changed to put comments in context.
	For the rest, yes, I would be delighted for an editor to find some way of
updating the 11 to 10, 222 to 264, and 3 (players) to 4.

George, I must ask *why* '[c]hanging the board to a superset of '10x10 board' (into 3d)we think now violates USPatent5690334(and other foreign) by legal doctrine of equivalents'? The patent is your patent on Falcon Chess, and I can understand Charles' use of the Falcon piece without appropriate permission is a violation of your patent. However, the wording of your first sentence, quoted above in its entirety, indicates that the board violates your exclusive patent rights. Please clarify this. Thank you.
Joe

at least one 10x10 plane is needed to get the most from the Ibis. Once that's in place, the Falcon can by its very nature move on that plane exactly as it can in Falcon Chess 100. Restricting it to, say, confine it to 8x8x3 would be a restriction not intrinsic to the board, strip the piece of its advantages over leapers in this variant, and above all be a breach of the patent by tampering with the piece as defined.

As to whether the board as a whole is merely an extended 10x8 or 10x10 board I would point out the following major characterists:

(1) 3 dimensional, so that Falcons can also leave or enter a 10x10 level;

(2) 4 players, with camps in corners of levels;

(3) different armies, only one of which even has the Falcon;

(4) No Bishops, Queen, or pieces of any kind with all or part of Bishop move.

My redesign brought this variant a lot more in keeping with the rest of the series, as well as eliminating obstacles to playability. For these reasons I would be extremely reluctant to redesign it again unless absolutely necessary. The hex-prism geometry planned for AOF2 was never an option as it would rule out the Nintu.

On the whole I find Mr. Duke's attitude to his piece strange. Personally I'd be delighted and flattered to see, for example, my Sow and Boar pieces used under those names in someone else's variant. If the choice is between using his Falcon and calling some other piece a Falcon, surely he'd prefer the former. Otherwise the patent has the effect only of marginalising his Falcon, which cannot be the intention. He should also note that although patents empower patentees to take action, they do not oblige them to do so.

Finally it is not true that this page 'undergoes continual revision'. I have made only three changes to the page since posting it. One was rewriting the Falcon defintion to eradicate unfortunate language and show my goodwill, which I promptly marked as an update. The second was the complete redesign of the board including removal of a botched piece, which I tried to mark as an update but was prevented by problems in the update mechanism. The third was a slight amendment to my reason for using the Camel, to reflect a decision to use it more widely in the series.

All right, here's another way to look at it. If this helps I might include it in the description.

Start of with an 8x8x3 board (e.g. Chess3, Millennium 3d Chess, Nardeshir, Petersen's 3d Space Chess, (Bodlaender's) Space Chess, Strato Chess). That has no concavities so pieces can move within it subject only to intervening pieces blocking Jackals and Rooks. To the top and bottom levels are added an extra 36-cell rim enlarging them to 10x10. The extra cells, marked in purple, have access only to/from/via cells on their own levels.

The 'via' means that the Falcon can uniquely make a step on the level FROM a purple cell FOLLOWED, or TO a purple cell PRECEDED, by two steps between black and/or white cells on different levels.

The restriction on access to purple cells also offers refuge there from the Jackal and Nintu, which cannot, for the other pieces, which can. So the Falcon can take refuge from a Nintu there, where as it might be threatened by one on the other cells of the same level.

You ask what about Dicemate? Well what indeed?? I am not aware of anyone having previously mentioned it on this page.

The idea that I would 'worry' about 'overuse' of any piece I named is missing the point. I take pride in those pieces and am happy for anyone else to use them.