Comments by RobertoLavieri

The game is going on. I abuse to say that it is now very playable, although
it is not going to be my favorite. One great point is that it is
different, and other is that it is a lesson: It is not easy to construct
good games by committee, some systemic vision of the entire game is
needed. Luotuoqi variants is the point: How to use local 'fantastic
ideas' to construct a playable game? . It is still the revision of the
Tower of Hanoi and its insertion in a better manner in the game. is it
necessary?. Depends. By the way, thanks, Michael. Good job. And thanks to
the others that made possible the game: Good lesson.
I´m not going to comment new things for about 10-15 days.(little vacation
trip). What are going to be the news?. I expect interesting things from
the TCVP community...

Well, I don't know if I am playing Asterix or not. The log is on, but I
have not been notified if my invitation was accepted or not. It was an
open invitation, but with priority to the inventor, David
Jagger.(elemental norms of courtesy)
Can someone tell me if the game is open?, and if it is the case, who am I
playing with?. If I am playing, what have I to do for make moves?. My main
e-mail can be found here in the CVP, I'm registered member, but
'comments and rating' can be used too for a response.

Yes, My intention was to extend an open invitation, but with priority to
the author of the game. I don´t know if it is easy or not this option can
be available in the PBM system without some possible confusion, as in my
case, and in an more easy way. Sometimes a player would be unable to have
in hand the e-mail adress of a person thought as prioritary. I suggest
other improvement, I think it is not difficult to identify the contenders
in the logs (may be pseudonimous names or the identification used by the
persons that are playing). When you open a log as spectator, no names
appears, if it is good or not depends, but in my case I have an
uncomfortable sempsation that nobody real is playing the game...

That is not the idea, An 'open invitation' with priority should mean that
if (and only if) the prioritary person rejects the invitation, then the
invitation can be considered open. O.K., this is equivalent to extend a
new invitation, only there is some extra work, so no more discussion on
this topic for the moment.
Deleting logs?. I think it should be done in an easiest way... But I am
not very critic about this, PBM system, as concept, is great; many
improvements may come in the future, surely.

Tony, think on this proposal:
1.- One Knight (orthogonal+diagonal 1-move to determine next space beyond
on a capture movement)
2.- One mirror Knight , as in Quintanilla´s Takeover (diagonal+orthogonal
single moves, to determine next space beyond)
3.- Diagonal Long-leapers, instead of bishops. As Ultima´s long-leapers,
but diagonally (capturing by displecement ONLY on the edges, never after a
leap capture)
4.- Orthogonal Long-leapers, instead of Rooks. (capturing by displecement
only on the edges, but never after a leap cature)
5.- Long-leaper, instead of a Queen: Diagonal+orthogonal Long-leaper.

Peter, I have thought on it, and you are right about weakness of the pawns
if multiple captures are permissed, and re-thinking the pawns is going far
from the Tony's original idea. But, as you, I defend the mirror knight,
with arguments that you have explained well. In every case, I agree that
it is easy a ZRF, so Tony is encouraged to make the code. And if some
testing is needed, well, I can do some work. If the result is as expected
(I think it is going to be nice), a Game Courier Preset may be added.
After that, there would be people interested on play the game. Me too, I
think.

I am curious about the game play, if there is the ZRF soon, I´m going to
test the game. It should be truth that the attack may be more difficult
than in FIDE Chess, but it is not necessarily demeriting, it may be an
interesting characteristic of the game. Let´s see.

Yes, the game tends to blocked positions in some situations. All pieces
look weaker in dense positions, and pawns are the better example. Using
FIDE pawns may be an alternative, but I don't like it too much, because
this kind of pawns are not thematic and they may be very vulnerable once
the game has cleared a bit. Better is use MIX pawns, with Amphibian move
and (FIDE-Chess or SHOGI move), i.e., really amphibians in all
environments, with terrestrial and marine movements, other possibility is
more elaborated: a two-moves per band game, the first is a normal move of
one of the own pieces, the other is to move ANY enemy piece (except the
King) to ANY position on the board where the piece is not directly
attacked by an own piece. This induced 'separation' of the group is
usual in the sea world, the compact groups look strong, isolated specimens
are weak and the whole group is many times affected by the strategy of the
enemies...

No, I were wrong. If I check the enemy King and it impostorizes a Knight
(captured to me previously), by example, then I can drop the Knight in the
next turn, isn't it?.
If that's the case, it is not discouraging check the enemy King, but it
would be a bad idea scape of the check impostorizing anything, unless it
is not other alternative.

I´m not sure if there is a compatibility problem with WebTVPlus, perhaps
someone can give you an answer (Fergus, Peter Aronson?). 
I have only seen compatibility problems when I have tried to use the PBEM
System from Solaris Operating System (my graphic workstation in my job). I
have not heard about compatibility of the system with other enviroments.
I´m curious about compatibility with Linux, by example. Is there anybody
that can make comments about?...

I like this: once paired the contendors, they must play simultaneously
three recognized variants (perhaps with a few games added to the list, say
three or four), the games to play are selected by commitee in each round,
or by the contendors. One victory means three points with white, and four
points with black, a draw 1.5 points with white, and 2 with black , and
the player with more points pass to the next round. If equal, the players
must play one game more, selected previously, or by the contendors, taken
from the list of games.
The final round may ba all around, with three or four players...

I don´t know if there are precedents of tournements where the Black win or
Draw is overvalued, but it was only an idea trying to take fast decisions
about what player goes to the next round, without extra games. In Chess,
there are statistical reasons for suspect that White has a very little
advantage over black, seen the results of G.M. games in tournements. In
many variants it is possible that the little advantage is diluted, but in
other variants that may not be the case. I think that in some little board
sized variants, the White has advantage, but I don´t want to qualify it,
neither mention the possible variants I have in mind, because I have not
enough elements to judge. Well, if there are another good ideas for the
Tournements, welcome. But it may be good avoid a lot of extra games in
each round.

Yes, other variants than recognized ones may enter the tornements. in fact,
you can organize any kind of tournements, I agree that other competitions
where the variants are not fixed previously have been a success, but it
does not invalidate the possibilty of a tournement of recognized variants.
Then point is what kind of tournement we want as the first game Courier
Tournement, and that of recognized variants is a reasonable idea, but it
can be too a Tournement of variants elected by voting, each player
mentions ten variants, and they are punctuated depending on position in
the list. After the count of punctuations, the variants of the tournement
are elected from the lists, the variants with more sum of points. Why
not?. This idea is not a bad one, neither it is the idea of a recognized
variants competition, an Oriental variants Tournement, a Hexagonal
variants Tournement, a 3D variants tournement, or many some other natural
or interesting ideas. What is the first?. Why?.

THIS IS AN ELECTORAL ADVERTISEMENT: 
Vote for Kamikaze Mortla Shogi!. It is nice!
Well, you have some other good options, not only in the initial list,
there are good new games in the list, and it can be increased in the next
days... What about Rococo, Extinction Chess, Pocket Polypiece, Star Trek
3d, Viking...?
And you have still the option of increase your list!. If you have not
voted yet, be encouraged and VOTE NOW!.

For the Coordinator, it would be best if it captures in Coordination with
the King using both vertical lines, the one that pass by the Coordinator
position, and the one that pass by the King position, and the enemy pieces
in the intersection of one of these lines with the Rook-lines that pass by
the position of the other piece in coordination, are captured. I have
suggested Antoine a pair of other ideas about, but decisions are not easy
at this early stage. Once ready the first BETA ZRF, some tests are needed
for refinements, but accord with his words, it is not expected the ZRF
before the first two month of 2004. I agree with Antoine about the use of
only one Long-Leaper. In a HEX Board, Long-Leapers are very powerful, and
a pair of them looks too much for the game.

This position shows TEN QUEENS and TWO PAWNS, Queens safe each other:
QUEENS: a8, b5, c3, d1, d6, e4, f2, f7, g5, h3
PAWNS: d5, f3

Is it possible with NINE QUEENS and ONE PAWN?. I think the answer is NO,
but it is not easy to give a proof!.

HERE IS THE ANSWER: YES!!!, it is possible to put 9 Queens and one Pawn in
an 8x8 Board, every Queen unattacked by other Queen.
POSITION:
QUEENS: a8, b5, c2, d4, d6, e1, f7, g5, h3
PAWN: d4
Verify!!!

Gary, excuse it. I agree with your dissapointment. I were effusive because
I enjoyed the problem and the way I attacked the solution, trying to give
a proof to my wrong hypothesis of impossibility, it conduced me to find
the solution. Of course, I´m not the winner of the book, it was almost
clear in the Andreas mail that he found the solution, and he did it before
me; and now I know you did it days before. But I am more interested in the
mathematical problem than in the prize. I´m going to think in the general
problem, but it is a very difficult one, I conjecture that if N>=n
(certain n<=8), and if N<M<2N, it is possible to put M Queens and M-N Paws
on the board in such way the Queens are safe each other.

Conjecture:
It exists n ( n <= 8 ) such that, if N >= n, and if M is a number such
that N < M <= 2N, then it is possible to put M Queens and M-N Pawns on the
NxN board ia a manner that the Queens are safe each other