Comments by graeme

I also opt for a voting method of judging, that way no-one need be excluded from entering. I would suggest each entrant should pick 3 games ordered 1st,2nd,3rd - 1st gets 3 points, 2nd 2, 3rd 1.

Additional theme suggestions:
- incomplete knowledge
- no FIDE pieces (including King)
- winning condition other than mate

I also support Abdul-Rahman Sibahi's suggestion of having a confined King (or other Royal piece)

Might I alsso suggest a contest with more than one theme? Say have 3 themes e.g. one Piece based (no FIDE pieces say), another special Criteria/Rule based (restricted King, say), and the third Conceptual (sci-fi/fantasy)

Each contestant could then enter any or all themes with the same or different games and have a vote in each theme entered. The theme winners would then be voted on by all contestants other than the theme winners to decide the overall winner.

I'll try...
Suppose the contest has three themes - call them t1 t2 and t3. Each contestant may enter a game in each theme. This could be a different game for each theme (contestant designs 3 games) or a single game thst meets the conditions of all 3 themes (contestant designs 1 game that is entered into t1 t2 and t3) - or somewhere in between (designs 2 games, one for entry in t1 and t2, the other for t3). Of course a contestant does not have to enter all 3 themes - they may just design 1 game for entry in a single theme (t2 say).

Within each theme those contestants entered in that theme will vote for a theme winner (see my other comment on a suggested voting system). Of course you may NOT vote for your own design.
The theme winners will then participate in a second vote by all the contestants apart from those winning the theme, to determine an overall contest winner

3 more suggestions:

• Simultaneous moves
• Incorporate non-chess gaming element(s) - e.g. dice, cards, quiz questions, gaming chips
• Boundless boards e.g. Circular, Toroidal, Spherical

I take it that, in line with previous n-square design contests, the term square is to be interpreted as meaning cell, and is not meant to exclude, for example, hex, trig or multi-dimension based boards?

Joe, I've had a quick look at my calcs again -

• Q = 11.508
• T = 10.297

'...:The most successful chess variants were invented by people who did not care if they would become rich or famous with their variant;...'

Sam, much as I would like this CV-Catch-22 to be true, I'm afraid we have no proof that it is. The fact of our present ignorance is no guide to the motives of the inventors of the past. We cannot even be sure that they were not rich and well-known in their day since wealth and fame are at best fickle and fleeting friends.

Cheeers
Graeme

Perhaps the best games aren't invented; maybe they just evolve.

I'd always thought the main idea behind the pawn positioning was to have them start the game equi-distant from a promotion hex.

'Topological equivalence also does not lead to equivalence in game-mechanics.'

Create a piece whose move is defined as:

a series of steps away from the starting cell exiting each cell via a short side.

Such a piece can be moved on the Penturanga board but not on the topologically equivalent hex-board.

'...the fact remains that Penturanga is just a funny-looking hexagonal chess variant.'

I'm afraid that is not a fact, it is, like mine, just an opinion - so may we just agree to differ?

Cheers
Graeme

Your example piece is a red herring.

My example piece may well be called a herring, red or otherwise, but it illustrates that topological equivalence, though necessary, is not sufficient for game equivalence. That having been said, I agree that for the pieces actually used in Penturanga there is game equivalence between the pentagonal and the hexagonal boards.

... but this is a mathematical problem with a definitive answer.

Exactly! A square has 4 sides, a hexagon has 6 sides, a triangle 3 sides, and a pentagon 5 sides. A board with 6-sided cells is termed hexagonal, so surely it is correct to term a board with 5-sided cells pentagonal?

Cheers
Graeme

Joe,
just sent you an email.

Cheers
Graeme

1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will actually do

The future of chess, I suspect, is on computers and the internet within the virtual cyber-realms created by software. Any initial lack of physical pieces should not hinder the popularity of a variant.

2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and the other pieces going to not be overpowered?

Surely a Rook promoted to RN is a less powerful outcome than a Rook and newly dropped RN ?

3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? ...

The main concern is surely playability? Unless a variant plays well it is unlikely to gain a following, however well it is promoted.

I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate new pieces into older games. As is promotion.

If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions

I am not forcing chess into anything, merely suggesting a way for using RN and BN within an 8x8 board. Besides, neither 'drop' nor 'promote' will change the fixed nature of the starting position. The only solution to that is to introduce non-determinism.