Comments by MarkThompson

If you really want to go for the ultimate in symmetry, I would suggest we
need to do away with the notion of a square board. A square has only eight
symmetries: reflection NS or EW, 180 degree rotation, or any (or no)
combination of these. Indeed, the ultimate in symmetry would be to do away
with the board's edges: the board should be infinite, hence giving it
translational as well as reflectional symmetry. And we should do away with
the notion of cells within the board: the most symmetrical 2-dimensional
object being the entire Euclidean plane, in which any point is equivalent
to any other. Then we have complete rotational symmetry, about any point,
as well as translations and reflections.

But since we're pursuing symmetry as the ultimate goal here, we need to
embolden ourselves to take the next vital step as well. To do away with
the last vestiges of ugly asymmetry, we must also abolish the pieces: for
once pieces are introduced into our pristine continuum, they render the
game asymmetrical again, by causing some points and directions to have
more importance than others: in particular, the points pieces occupy, and
the directions they would need to move to attack other pieces, would have
special importance. Our ultimate, perfectly symmetrical chess must
therefore consist of an infinite plane with NO PIECES AT ALL.

It might be objected that without pieces it will be difficult to state
rules of movement, capture, initial setup, and object. But clearly, since
we desire a perfectly symmetrical game, we must abolish these notions as
well: because the perfectly symmetrical chess game must be symmetrical in
time as well as in space, and therefore it must have no beginning, no end,
and no change: the state of the game at any point must be the same as its
state at any other point. 

And so, at last, we have our perfectly symmetrical game: no cells, no
pieces, no goal, no players: is not its perfect, chaste serenity a thing
of beauty? Have we not achieved true theoretical perfection? And can we
not get back to discussing real chess games now?

Touche! :-)

I wrote that years ago and have forgotten the wording enough that when I
reread it nowadays I keep thinking, criminy, what pompous a$$ wrote this
stuff?

Here's that page I couldn't find before, that describes how to make fairy
chessmen out of regular Staunton pieces:

http://www.chessvariants.org/crafts.dir/fairy-chess-pieces.html

It's listed in the alphabetical index under 'How to make ...', but I think 
it would be better to list it in the index page of the Crafts section:

http://www.chessvariants.org/crafts.dir/index.html

As I say, I've used the technique described to make a Marshall and
Cardinal, though I haven't followed the full instructions for
dismembering a whole chess set to make the full range of pieces the author
shows. But I have enough to make an attractive set for Grotesque Chess.

I hope Mr. and Mrs. Fischer are very happy in their marriage. But this
business of the Japanese holding him prisoner on false charges is
disturbing. Surely the Japanese do not customarily hold people on false
charges? Are we quite certain that the charges are not in fact true? I
hope no one would assume automatically that anything alleged against a man
admired for his chess expertise is false.

Robert Abbott now has a set of Ultima puzzles on his website!

http://www.logicmazes.com/games/puz1to4.html

I've suggested in the forum that the Games Courier might implement a 'The
World Against ...' system, whereby a champion at some variant would play
White and everyone else plays Black. 'The World' can use a public forum
to discus possible lines of play and could vote (in a strict time-span) on
which move to make. 

Grand Chess would be a good game to investigate this way, because
Mindsports Arena has held tournaments some years back, so it has
recognized champions: Wayne Schmittberger and John Vehre. Either 'The
World Against Vehre' or 'The World Against Schmittberger' would be
great fun, I think, if either party could be enlisted for it.

Tony, that sounds like a good idea. Something like 'the World against
Kasparov.' Maybe the winner of the CV tournament could play one side and
'the world' could play the other? Or, just 'the world against the
world.'

If this is the square you're proposing the white King to move to, I don't
see how the move puts him in check.

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][p][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]     Caps are black, lowercase are white
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[p][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[k][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][K][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

The basic idea of the game is that, as there are two simple sliders (B, R)
and one combination slider (B+R=Q), so in Wildebeest Chess there are also
two simple jumpers (Knight = (1,2) jumper and Camel = (1,3) jumper), and
one combined jumper (Wildebeest = N+C). I wonder how well the idea would
work instead with Knights and Zebras ((2,3) jumpers), and a combination
N+Z piece?

There is the idea that, as one of the sliders is color-bound, so perhaps
one of the jumpers ought to be also, hence the Camel. But it's not
obvious to me that rule makes for the best game. I'd be interesting in
knowing whether Wayne Schmittberger or anyone else has tried it. 

Actually, since the preset to enforce the rules has not been written for
this game yet, it would be possible to try playing this way, simply
entering Zebra moves for Camels and Knight/Zebra moves for the Wildebeest.

I like the way this game addresses the problem of the too-powerful royal
piece (which can make it hard to win the game) by the rule that the queen
cannot slide through check. That seems original and yet chesslike, and
sounds likely to do the trick. The explanation on this page was a little
hard for me to decipher, however: I'd suggest rephrasing somehow to
remove the reference to queens capturing other queens. Is 'cover' as you
use it here a standard chess term? I hadn't run across it yet.

I wish the board had a fourth color, so that each dragon would be
restricted to squares of one color. 

Shouldn't there be a piece for Ireland? A Harp, perhaps? No idea what it
would do, though.

'There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and
have the advantage of being offensive.' Surely Charles simply forgot to
type the word 'not' in this sentence.

'the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.' I
imagine Charles G's use of 'brutish' harks back to the use of 'brute'
to mean 'beast,' which is comprehensible enough. The idea that a CV
inventor's choice of a name should be second-guessed at length is
certainly odd, though.

I've been thinking of a variant expanding on the Bughouse concept that I
call Team Chess (or Team Shogi). I'm envisioning six players on a team,
and games taking place between two opposing teams. Two team members play a
small variant, two play usual chess, and one plays a large variant; the
sixth team member is the captain. All three chess variants being played
should use similar armies and rules, so that it won't cause confusion if
a piece gets transferred to another board -- perhaps Quickchess, usual
chess, and Grand Chess. The winner of the large variant game determines
the winning team. When a piece is captured, the capturing team's captain
takes it in hand (it changes color) and delivers it to one of his team's
five players (captain's choice) to drop at will. The captain can watch
all five of the games, but no other communication takes place between the
team members once play has begun. 

I haven't decided what should happen when one of the smaller games ends;
should the captain receive all the pieces of the conquered army? None of
them? Perhaps just a Prince (non-royal King)?