Comments by RichardHutnik

Test msg... ignore. Seeing if there is an issue with the database.

Ok, no problem.

Is there an entry on here for For the Crown yet?  I know of a few Navia
players who I can let them know about the game.

As has been noted, this format has gone through revisions.  In the most recent form, which is for Connect Four (Captain's Mistress), it goes under the name 'Massive Multiplayer ________' and you stick the name of the abstract strategy game in there.

Some other tweaks also have been done:
* In play, there isn't scoring, just trying to be on the winning side.
* When it is your team's turn to vote on a move, you vote.
* When it isn't your team's turn, you can choose to defect to the other team. There is an options to limit the number of times you can defect, with the current preferred number of defections to be one.
* If all players defect from one team, they all lose, and the game is over.
* Run digitally, it would be idea to keep players anonymous, so no one knows who is whose team, or even the number of players on their team.

As an added note, this format could be used in scientific research to study loyalty and defection patterns among team members, and you add or remove elements from the environment to see how it impacts the loyalty of players in the game.

I would propose adding the Eurasian Pawn in here two.  At least cover the full range of pawns, and note them, as a discussion point.  During play of this variant, ground rules can be added for what is in and out.  For example, I would say NO to a Eurasian pawn on an 8x8 board.  Ok, the Eurasian pawn:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSeurasianpawnpi


One options for pawns is to have one (or a few base) picture of them, and then stick dots or Xs around it to signify how it moves and captures.  I know  a pawnrider would likely both be silly and hard to notate.

The idea for this game came out of another game mentioned on Scheming Mind.  I thought it would be interesting to change their approach to all Queens, and see how it went.  It apparently went pretty well with my playing it on Zillions.  It ends up being an interesting twist on misere' games.

Yes, it likely can be better.  Feel free to come up with something better.  When I do a game design, part of it is an inspiration for others to improve upon it.  Or, I will stumble across something also I feel is worth looking into.

Bungie, the makers of Halo, announced today a new multiplayer mode for
Halo: Reach.  That mode is CHESS!

See the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS7V9SbBvRA

I know, the date and all that, but I think they should throw it in there.

On a 10x10 with the Eurasian Pawn, where do you suggest the pawns set up,
on the second or third row?  I personally would like to say EITHER and add
the concept of multiple formations into the NextChess, so that we don't
develop stale opening books, while also not falling into having erratic set
up of shuffle.  I would say also players would be free to set up their
lines of pawns on either the second or third pawn, but restrict things.

I think it would be interesting if more games cominging Tafl with Chess are proposed and played.  I had done this earlier with TaflChess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MStaflchess

TaflChess is a lot closer to regular chess than this.

Movie about Bobby Fischer in the works.  The current working name for the film is 'Pawn Sacrifice'.  Toby Maguire set to play Booby Fischer.
 
Info here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/

IGGameCenter also has Russian Chess (Tavreli) on it also, and we are
tracking the results.

Check out this Internet Meme:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/roller-coaster-chess

People playing chess on a roller coaster.  It looks like it has been
holding steady since 2007 as far as Internet activity goes.

Thanks.  We are looking for a rating involving multiple games that rewards
players playing multiple games, for the IAGOweb.com website.

A few comments (I had been out of action trying to get a new laptop set
up):
1. In regards to invention, I believe it is one of the strengths of the
variant community, and provides both an outlet for designers and also a way
for chess variants not to get boring.  My concern with them is that each
one ends up being its own path, and doesn't lend anything to the
collective experience of playing variants, outside of just another game to
play.  I would like the experiences to be able to mingle among one another
and for the variant design, in some framework, to enable one design to be
built off of another, and that to continue to evolve, and what is learned
to be able to be reused.  Yes, we can do that to some extent now, but we
have issues with naming conventions and the like, which make it more
difficult.
1a. I have a vested interest in seeing the chess variant community produce
champions at various games, which we could help use to promote variants.  I
speak from the perspective of a sports federation when I say this.  And I
write this also, in that I would like to see IAGO to be able to recognize
and stand behind the conventions the variant community came up with for the
pieces and the like.
2. Chess on a 12 by 12 board looks like Warmaster Chess 2000.  Please let
me know how it isn't the same.  Here is word on Warmaster:
http://blog.chess.com/RooksBailey/chess-crusade-warmaster-chess-and-no-chess
3. FastChess?  We talking about a Speed/Blitz chess as the game in
question?  I am of the belief also (I say also if Speed/Blitz is what is
meant by FastChess) the chess community is deciding to speed up the clock
to solve all its ills.  And it does resolve a lot of the issues it has,
regarding openings, draws, and making the game more interesting to watch. 
Unless the variant community gets together and comes up with some way to
showcase itself more to the world, and get interest, there is a definite
interest in locking out the variant community, saying it doesn't bring
anything to the table but distraction.  I would rather not see that
happen.
4. I don't believe you will get anything to replace 8x8 unless the
physical boards become more readily available.  That is how it works.  And
I wouldn't expect 9x9 to be it either, as that totally disrupts normal
chess.  It also brings back visions of the chess variant with 2 queens
aside and the bishops on the same colors.

A possible approach to this is what I mentioned in the NextChess4 thread:

How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will be
played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns the
following year to defend their title?  A proviso would be the player can't
pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title against.  I
believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed in this
thread.  Of course, we should look towards refining the concept, and take
it from there.  

A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament,
you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game
until someone different wins.  They then would end up picking a different
game, and is one they didn't design.  I would recommend here that the
winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier.

Anyhow, I believe you also come up with an agreed to list of games that
would be candidates to be played and can be picked by the winner of the
tournament.

Hello again Fergus.

Please understand the position I am coming from.  As much as I would like
chess variants to be light and casual things, I am involved with a
non-profit who is trying to not only represent the interest of players and
designers, but also publishers, schools, and everyone else.  The interest
is to get increased interest by the media, so that we can get more
resources so we can do more, and get more of the world to notice, and get
variants here greater attention. I do have an interest to get a magazine on
the newsstands that would promote chess variants.  Throw in also a TV show,
or cable network that has room for variants, and I believe we could be onto
something.

Anyhow, on the note for a tournament format to promote chess variants, I
will propose the following as a starting point: 
* How about having a tournament where the winner then picks what game will
be played the following year, and players compete, and the player returns
the following year to defend their title?  A proviso would be the player
can't pick one of their own designs as the game to defend their title
against.  I believe this format would touch on a lot of what was discussed
in this thread.  Of course, we should look towards refining the concept,
and take it from there.  

A variant on this last point is, rather than it be an annual tournament,
you run an ongoing series of tournaments, and keep playing the same game
until someone different wins.  They then would end up picking a different
game, and is one they didn't design.  I would recommend here that the
winner of the prior tournament doesn't have to play in the qualifier

Please let me know your thoughts on this (This goes to everyone, not just
Fergus).