Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Goodchess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Mark Thompson wrote on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 01:02 PM UTC:

This description doesn't specify the starting arrangement of the pieces. They start in the second row, but are they otherwise in the 'usual chess' arrangement? Or are they arranged from left-to-right in the order you mention them?

They might be in some other order, or perhaps they could be arranged ad lib by the players at the start of the game: i.e., White places a piece-and-its-pawn, Black places a piece-and-its-pawn, etc., until all are in place, whereupon they start moving.

Este wrote on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 01:40 PM UTC:

Thanks for pointing that out, will try and include graphics soon. Cheers.

Jörg Knappen wrote on Sun, Mar 4, 2012 11:07 AM UTC:Poor ★

The poor goes out for bad piece naming practice: Gold, Silver, and Copper are well established pieces from Shogi and its variants. They have specific moves different from Gold, Silver, and Copper here. The pieces starring in this game are known under the namens Commoner (or Man), Ferz, and Wazir (look them up in the piecoclopedia, they are all there).

Hubert wrote on Sun, Mar 4, 2012 03:11 PM UTC:

The last thing we need is piece name police. If designer likes gold, silver, copper then that is what he should use, they seem more elegant to me than commoner, wazir, ferz. Game itself is hard for me to rate, not sure about game with fluid pawns, might be too tactical, might be lively and fun.

Jörg Knappen wrote on Mon, Mar 5, 2012 01:56 PM UTC:

@hubert It is not about a naming police, it is about respect to what is already here from traditional and modern chess variants. And paying respect includes noting that the pieces and the names were already used before. A designer may choose to differ and make this explicit in the exposition of his or her game.

Another point addresses potential players: It makes learning a game much easier when pieces with well-known names move as expected from their names.

Hubert wrote on Mon, Mar 5, 2012 09:20 PM UTC:

I don't see need to 'pay respect' to ancient traditional games when borrowing very simple and obvious moves, moves might not even come from ancient games they are so simple and logical. Is 'commoner' even an ancient name? I don't think so. I still say inventor's privilege applies unless using piece clearly invented by a person, and even then inventor can rename piece to fit his taste after acknowledge prior work.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 05:05 PM UTC:

I notice the board layout. I had done Near Chess awhile back based on that. I found out that Skirmish Chess done before on here that followed that. I was wondering if the idea for the layout came from either of these, or were your own idea.

Hubert wrote on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 01:16 PM UTC:

Hutnik, this array goes back at least as far as Cohen in the 60's. It was not your invention.

8 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.