[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Beyond Omega. Large abstract variant with radial and oblique pieces requiring rotation. (15x15, Cells: 225) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Gilman makes no mention of name of Omega inventor Gabriel Vicente Maura, although mentioning Duniho's name. [The Latin American Omega Chess is named two decades earlier than commercial Canadian Omega.] This BOC is stealing too much of Maura's concept in the core game Omega Chess from year 1974, although at least acknowledging it. Gilman's entire Rules section reads ''Rules, as Omega.'' That's it for the rules of ''Beyond Omega Chess.'' Inappropriate warping enlargement of Maura's game suitable only for a Comment under Maura's Omega by commonsense standards that would prevail away from CVPage. Beyond Omega is not being appropriate of separate write-up attributable to Gilman laying claim to be ''inventor.'' Gilman attempts rationalization defensively in his very first paragraph by citing Duniho's Storm the Ivory Tower.
Copying as it does Smess, Storm the Ivory Tower is also unfortunate variety of self-acknowledged plagiarism. Sure there are fine lines. If either Beyond Omega or Storm the Ivory Tower were presented as satire or humour, they could be tolerable or acceptable. Instead, these ''artworks'' are shown by respective authors Gilman and Duniho as improvements of earlier products Omega and Smess. We now know there could be ''umpteen'' thousands of ''variants'' of any fundamental underlying Rules-set. Why not just put personal adaptations, intrinsically the same as prior art on some basic level, in Comment or two under the original work? Especially since they are not going to be played anyway. And even if having pretty good idea of one's own -- as Gilman has here with ''Alpha-Lambda'' representing ''incomplete'' Knight or Camel according to orientation. Sorry, Charles, it's not enough novelty, Gabriel got there first; and it is Maura's CV not Gilman's.
There you go, the name is added. My lapse was because Omega Chess existed long before the website, although in retrospect I can see that this is an inadequate benchmark for 'antiquity'. Rather than 'stealing' the idea, I am rather paying tribute to the game - I share your view of which of the variants called 'Omega Chess' is the better. Nor do I challenge the idea that someone else 'got there first' - not even Isaac Newton was that arrogant. The essence of my variant is that I would never have thought of it without the example of the earlier variant. Think of all the Shogi variants - are they a 'theft' from Shogi's truly ancient inventors? Far from it, they are acknowledgments of its greatness.
Charles, has anyone created a Zillions implementation of this game? If not, I would like to give it a try.
Newton's line, ''If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,'' credits Descartes in same sentence on nature of Light. The very century two imperialist Empires British and French were most fighting up to Seven-Years War's millions dead, scientists would collaborate and also bicker (like Calculus, Leibnitz Newton?). Now Gilman says, ''Think of all the Shogi variants.'' What Shogi ''variants'' in particular? CVPage under its banner could list hundreds under Shogi technically. Millions of Shogis are easy to devise. So what? Chess-proficient outsiders might recognize the vast majority as artwork at best and failed attempts. Japan herself might have at most some couple dozen reasonably accepted, and they are the important ones, not really so many in number. In entities like CVPage, the main styles are based on either Western 8x8 expanded, or 9x9 Shogi, or larger 9x10 Xiangqi. The proliferation is not taking place at China or Japan. Where personal Artistic expression for little evident purpose is constant goal, even fewer real new Chess Variants are emerging now than ever before. Without wide playing in game scores, or Mates-in Two or End-game studies, and general cultural-rootedness, these so many Rules-sets (Eastern- and Western-inspired) do not rise to level of CVs by proven antique standards. They are mostly so much divertissement, scribbling or Joe Joyce's characterization ''aether.''
Regarding an implementation, I am happy for anyone who likes the idea enough to go ahead and create one. Regarding Shogi variants, my point was not about the quality of any of them. Indeed I have my own criticisms of some (one group of very similar variants, by the same person, should have been on a single page rather than one each). It was that they were invented by admirers of Shogi itself. Likewise, Beyond Omega is by an admierer of Omega Chess in the sense used in the page. Finally, 'the very century two imperialist Empires British and French were most fighting up to Seven-Years War's millions dead' seems to me to be a good time for reconciliation.
Gabriel Maura is deceased only since 1980's, and Gilman is honouring his memory. Gilman acknowledges Maura's is better. It is beyond deciphering in quick minute, but Gilman may even be saying, since I mentioned Macdonald's Omega, that: (Omega of Maura) > (Omega of Gilman) > (Omega of Canada). Far more importantly, that is how I would rate them relatively. Altogether aside from issues of plagiarism rooted in CVP's entirely-changed ethos, why is Gilman's enlargement a worsening, as he himself agrees? Because the directions, literal vectors of Delta are crisp and clear 0 degrees and 45 degrees along well-familiar radial lines. Whereas directions of Gilman's Knight and Camel are not realistically distinguishable that way in over-the-board play, if it ever occurred. Look up angles whose tangents are respectively 2 for N and 3 for Camel, 63.43 and 71.57, for difference on only 8.14 degrees. Inferiorly, Alpha and Lambda player must always and normally look at the piece symbol to tell whether it is Knight or Camel, unlike Delta. That uniqueness of one virtual piece-type is the essence of original Omega. In all his writings Gilman needs more explaining, since we do not carry many standard numbers around in our head of root this, angle that. Quickly, what is square root of 20 for (2,4) leaper? Gilman more often should remove false mystery, so we can instead dwell on tactical mechanisms, if there are any of interest, and not have to preoccupy with rules interpretations in his games. I prefer write-ups from the ground up, as if to schoolkids. Since we cannot tell angles of 8 degrees difference apart, Gilman is changing Maura's effective mechanism.
'(Omega of Maura) > (Omega of Gilman) > (Omega of Canada)' - This may well apply to any comparison between two very different variants coincentally having the same name, and a third based on the better of the two. Note that I never claimed that my variant was Omega Chess (of either kind), and carefully chose a different name, though one clearly identifying its origins. 'Inferiorly, Delta and Lambda player must always and normally look at the piece symbol to tell...' - Actually it is the Delta that is a Maura original with the Omega, and the Alpha a Gilman extra with the Lambda. '26.5 and 33.7, for difference on only 7.2 degrees.' - Each piece rotates by exact multiples of 45°. To tell which kind of move they make a player need simply distinguish a long and a short side. A lesser inventor might have created a piece roitating only between Nightrider moves - turning by mind-boggling sums of 37° and 53° turns!
I decided to change my original rating since Maura's is so subtly good and also running across Betza's comparable ''Ultimate Ultima.'' Though one more Omega is more than enough, two more piece-types after the same fashion are more playable. Maura would okay that the way he workably brought Modern to over-the-board at Spain, Mexico and Puerto Rico. Maura's Modern's 9x9 also is the acknowledged model for ChessBoardMath3 Baseball Chess.
Nicely geometric, as Omega, but not as minimalist and a bit harder to visualize. I don't see the difference between an Alpha and Lambda and wonder if there are opposition rules.
The Alpha and Lambda are mirror images. An Alpha and a Lambda that can reach the same squares on one rank can reach non-intersecting sets of squares on the next. I gave the two types of piece different names because I didn't want to keep referring to 'half the Lambdas', 'the other half', 'the same half' and so on. If I allowed the pieces to be flipped over they would indeed be the same, but I do not.
So why not make game with entire greech alphabet? :)
11 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.