[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by LarryLSmith
Website of Larry Lynn Smith
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Chinese Chess (Xiangqi). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]An aspect of Chinese Chess is that certain pieces are primarily defensive(Elephants and Ministers). Also that the both players need to maintain offensive pieces to prosecute the game. These values can tax a simple depth-search program. Demanding at least a few extra computational considerations.
Here's something interesting: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=222671&title=games-the-annihilator
Centaur Royal and Double Centaur Royal 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The link should read: http://www.chessvariants.org/membergraphics/MZcentaurroyalan/CentaurRoyal.zip
Xiang Hex. Missing description (9x7, Cells: 79) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It is easy enough to simply say that a game is somehow 'damaged' or 'incorrect'. It is another to specifically demonstrate these claims. So far, those who have posted negative comments about this variant have done so without specific examples to demonstrate their positions. And to apparently done so to merely draw attention to their personal variants is very uncool. To exactly extrapolate XiangQi to the hexagonal field may prove virtually impossible. For various reasons which have been stated further down the thread. The best a developer can hope is a hexagonal game which has the 'flavor' of XiangQi. And, yes, there are a large number of variants which have attempted to do this. So to expect any hexagonal game of XiangQi to exactly match each and every dynamic of the square field is just silly thinking. Or is it simply forcing a personal viewpoint as an implied standard? I look forward to anyone who can demonstrate that this particular game is 'flawed'. This should be done with a specific in-game demonstration. To further justify there should be an example of how the player reached, or forced, this supposed 'bad' position.
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Chinese Chess (Xiangqi). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Checkers might be considered trivial, while Go is quite complex. Though a simple reference link would suffice.
GD, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)#Computers_and_Go Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go Go should really have a page here at TCVP. Particularly since there are several variants which are based upon this game and its equipment.
LiQi. Very Strong Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just a little history of planar pieces. In 1997, D.E. Matson simply named the 3D planar pieces; 3D Rook(orthogonal), 3D Bishop(diagonal) and 3D Queen(orthogonal/diagonal). In 2004, Prince was published at TCVP. And in 2004, LiQi was published at the Zillions-of-Games site.
Yeah, GD, anonymous postings can be taken with a grain of salt. Though I believe the moderators can verify the ISP source of such, and thus determine if someone is ghosting. But this still doesn't justify your multi-voting. Which is an obvious rating manipulation.
GD, this is a 'strong' game. There is no claim that it is the 'strongest'. Please refrain from multi-voting. This drives down the average rating on a page. Or is this your intent?
The BenYe(running leaf) is definitely stronger than the Queen. And the JiaoYe(angled leaf') is stronger than the Bishop. And the FeiYe(flying leaf) is stronger than the Rook. And these strengths are present from the opening to the endgame. The TianWang(heavenly king) is stronger than the King. But since it must always maintain a defender, it loses strength as the game progresses. And yes, it is based upon the Emperor piece from several historical Shogi variants and I took creative license in its re-naming so that it fit the overall theme of the game. And the RuoShi(young lion) is permitted up to two captures during its move. The 'igui' capture was denied to force the player to reposition this piece when used, offering the opponent potentially new lines of attack through the player's defenses. Now before anyone points out that the title and the names of pieces are Chinese, allow me to say that I attempted to blend aspects of the three dominant wargames of the World. Mad Queen, Shogi and XiangQi. Thus the number of pieces being from the European game, several piece types having similarity to the Japanese games and the overall appearance very much like the Chinese game. The use of points, rather than cells, actually aids in the visualization of the planar movements. As to this game being referred to as 'artwork', I gladly embrace this attempted disparagement. I believe the game is quite beautiful, both in appearance and play. But that is just my egocentric two-cents-worth. ;-)
The planar pieces in this variant are not restricted to any specific set of values for their axes. Though developers might consider such for their games. Hey, just have fun. And since all the positions within the planar move are considered, they are strictly NOT multi-path. They do not have optional paths within the area of a specific move. But if one wants to be fussy about planar categorization, they could be termed omni-path. But why not simply refer to them as planar?
Thanks for the heads-up. Just a small error while half-asleep. ;-) I've made the correction to the previous post to avoid confusion. I had first started with the f5 position, then changed it to d7 to best demonstrate the diagonal planar move. Made the changes to the potential positions within the pattern but missed the initial statement.
Planar moves are translations from one corner position of a plane to its opposite corner position. The plane is defined by two distinct axes. There must be no other pieces located on positions within this plane. For example, an orthogonal planar move from b3 to d7 could be performed if b4, b5, b6, b7, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, d3, d4, d5 and d6 are vacant. 8 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 7 [ ][-][-][x][ ][ ][ ][ ] 6 [ ][-][-][-][ ][ ][ ][ ] 5 [ ][-][-][-][ ][ ][ ][ ] 4 [ ][-][-][-][ ][ ][ ][ ] 3 [ ][o][-][-][ ][ ][ ][ ] 2 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 1 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] a b c d e f g h This a translation within a 3x5 plane. And, of course, these planes can be of various dimensions. The diagonal planar move can prove a little difficult for the new player to visualize. The same translation from b3 to d7 could be accomplished if a4, b5, c4, c6, d5 and e6 are vacant. A 2x4 plane. Note that b4, c5 and d6 are NOT part of this diagonal pattern. 8 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 7 [ ][ ][ ][x][ ][ ][ ][ ] 6 [ ][ ][-][ ][-][ ][ ][ ] 5 [ ][-][ ][-][ ][ ][ ][ ] 4 [-][ ][-][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 3 [ ][o][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 2 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] 1 [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] a b c d e f g h The simple linear slide can be considered a planar move with one axis being only one position wide. And planar pieces can also perform this form of movement. Okay, that is the short version. I hope that it was illuminating. I've included an empty field variant with the Zillions implementation(for those who have the program) so that a player can check out the dynamics of this form of play.
The Mad Queen variant is not really 'wrong' or 'damaged'. It is just simply becoming 'simplified' in the collective consciousness. Eventually(not tomorrow), it will be superseded by another variant(just as it superseded previous variants during its time). What that one will be is totally conjecture at this point in time. But allow me to conjecture(or predict). The 'next chess' could be 3D. This is simply a logical extension of the wargame. Will it be a 3D extrapolation of the Mad Queen variant? Or some other creature entire. Let the argument continue(hopefully rational). Maybe we'll dig this gem from our brains one day. ;-)
Rebel Fury . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a beta version Zillions implementation of Rebel Fury. I have play-tested for the last week, but would be happy if someone else took a hard look. If an error is found, please create a ZSG file and send me a copy. Along with a short description of the problem. For a challenging game, I suggest that the Zillions engine be run at least at Strength 6, mid-range Variety and Infinite Time. This can take a lot of time to receive a response(pratically all day), but your patience will be rewarded. Thanks in advance.
Royal Fury. A Futuristic Chessery Game - relaxed win rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I should have said that the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a 'near-sighted' Gorgon. :)
Okay, Royal Fury resembles Ultima. |-] Though did either game really have contact with the other? Chess variants, at that time, were not so widely published. Though many Chess Clubs had either newsletters, or collections, which featured many variants. The Mimotaur of Royal Fury and the Chameleon of Ultima seem to be the only piece in common. Though the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a short-range Gorgon.
I believe that Royal Fury pre-dates Ultima. So might it best be said that Ultima resembles Royal Fury? ;-)
In the pursuit of mathematical definitions for games and their pieces, one of the basic qualities, often over-looked, is fun. Primarily because it is impossible to fully quantify, but also it is very subjective. Allow me to point out a game which I find quite enjoyable. This is V. R. Parton's Royal Fury. One which he claimed as a futuristic form of Chess. It contains many pieces of power, both strong and strange. Therefore it is un-forgiving in its play. One mistake can lead to disaster. I had written a Zillions implementation, primarily for my personal use(since it can be difficult to find human opponents who were willing to risk such a game), to test out the potential of this game. And discovered its high level of aggravation(a quality which I thoroughly enjoy). Also, that Zillions was really not up to the task of prosecuting a good form of play with this game. I even tried various alternate set-up patterns to see if there was an optimum. And discovered that Parton's was most probably the best(at least in comparison to those I had attempted). So I now accept its master's wishes. Like Nemoroth, Royal Fury has pieces which affect and are affected by other pieces. This can be a source of great frustration for many new players. Yet I find this quality of frustration(primarily within myself) again enjoyable. I point all this out to demonstrate an aspect in the nature of fun. Not as an absolute value but simply as a subjective facet. Other might not enjoy such games, nor should they be forced to play such(this would be seriously contrary to the nature of fun). But there are many in this world, whose population is numbered in billions, who might enjoy an occasional game of Royal Fury.
Yeah, I remember an on-line argument between some individuals about the 'diagonal' descriptive in hexagonal games. One insisted that it was improper because not only did the target cell have a tenuous connection to the starting cell but that it involved the shift of three axes on the field(rather than two) and thus the term 'diagonal' was insufficient. Another even argued that there were no 'diagonal' moves on the hexagonal field, merely leaps to orthogonally-connected cells. There was much venom, and an excessive use of mathematics. In the end, common use may have won. Few(and there are still some) will now argue about the term 'diagonal' in the description of this form of translation on the hexagonal field. Perception is probably the greatest factor in game descriptions. How does a designer relate their concepts to the potential player in such a way that they can easily visualize them? Building upon common ground is probably a sound approach. Verbal logic, with minimal use of mathematical formulae(which some players may have a dis-advantage), is a positive. Consistency, at least within a given ruleset, is also a necessity.
One of the humorous Chess articles I have read was about the different ways that the Knight's move was described over the centuries. Sorry, I do not absolutely recall the book that it was in(I believe that it was in Mensa's book on Chess). It gave a large variety of examples, each more convoluted the next. All took a bit of careful consideration(or at least diagrams) to work out their logic. Some just made the reader go sparrow. I bring this up as an example, so that hopefully developers will avoid re-hashing particular descriptives. Thus continuing the confusion of particular pieces. BTW, my description of a Knight move is a translation to the opposite corner cell of a 2x3 area. Is it better than others? Maybe not. But I really like it. ;-)
I gladly apologize to any who have found my comments offensive, or even inappropriate. I had hoped that by approaching the subject of 'the piece which shall not be named'(humor) from both a serious and a humorous angle that conversation would evolve rather than continue along the redundant path it had taken. Obviously I was being pollyanna-ish. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, the term 'the piece which shall not be named' refers only to the Falc--- Oh God! I gone blind!
Man and Beast Overview and Glossary. Table summarising what piece characteristics Man and Beast articles cover, with glossary of terms used to describe pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Those planar pieces which are not restricted by occupancy of their attack plane might actually be classified as 'hook-movers'. The restriction of planar pieces might seem a little draconian, but only during the early portion of the game. As the field clears, these pieces begin to rise exponentially in threat. A further restriction was developed because of the dynamics of the diagonal(and triagonal) planar piece. This was that all the cells within the planar move must exist on the field. Though developers and players are not strictly bond by this rule. For a nice(or so I think) 2D game which demonstrates planar moves, try LiQi. It utilizes the same equipment as the Mad Queen(but it does not restrict the diagonal planar piece). There's also a Zillions implementation.
That's one of the primary hurdles in developing an algorithm, foreknowledge of the dynamics of the game. A generic algorithm could prove impossible to apply to all games. Unless such was written so that sub-functions could be added and manipulated. These sub-functions could either increase the amount of data that the algorithm considers, or even truncate it. The programming language for such sub-functions would need to be extremely flexible. Right now I am studying Axiomatic to determine its strength and how(or if) it can be used in creating strong adjustable algorithms.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.