Single Comment

<P>George Duke wrote:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> However, Falcon Chess is the 'correct' expansion of FIDE-type Chess, more so than Fischer Random and Carrera-Capablanca, in their same spirit of an evolving ideal form of chess. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The two games you mention were created by grandmasters who had extensive knowledge of opening theory, and I think one of the main reasons behind the creation of both games was the need for new frontiers to conquer after they had conquered Chess, and not so much the desire to replace Chess with the next step in its evolution, which seems to be your agenda. So I don't think the creation of your game is in the same spirit as the creation of these two games.</P> <P>As for whether your game is truly the 'correct' expansion of FIDE-type Chess, I have serious doubts about that. Even assuming that one expansion of FIDE-type Chess would be more valid than any other, I doubt that Falcon Chess truly is more valid than any other. Although I don't propound it as such, I think my own Eurasian Chess may fit the bill better, because if Chess is lacking anything, it may well be hoppers, and Eurasian Chess adds two hoppers that parallel the Rook and Bishop, namely the Cannon and Arrow.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> Most CV designers have a different philosophy about creating games preferring a multiplicity of versions. Yet imagine going into say a high school chess club and propounding dozens or hundreds of sets of rules one as recommended as another. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This argument attacks a straw man. In other words, it misrepresents the opposing side in a way that appears laughable. But it is just a mischaracterization. I am of the opposing side, and if I went to a high school chess club to promote variants, I would limit the variants I introduce to a select few, and I would do little more than mention where they can learn of other variants they might be interested in. Moreover, I am not of the opinion that any variant is as good as another, and I would not propound dozens, much less hundreds, of rules as being just as recommended as the next.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> The hostile environment of CVP to the other method, evidenced in FC, FRC, Capablanca-Gothic, is why Falcon Chess is never to be developed within Zillions of Games. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You are aware, aren't you, that the CVP and Zillions of Games are two separate entities. So what does 'the hostile environment of CVP to the other method' have to do with Zillions of Games? Wouldn't it be a better reason against developing Falcon Chess on Game Courier? After all, Game Courier is hosted on the CVP, and it's the creation of one of its editors, namely myself. But Zillions of Games is a commercial program by people who are not even members of this website.</P> <P>As for my own attitude toward your method, it is not so much hostility as it is the belief that your method is quixotic. I think the bulk of the hostility you get is from people who take a strong moral stance against patenting Chess variants, and, without naming names, I think some of this arises from what they take to be the misuse of patents by others. Some people get very angry about this, and they find you a convenient target.</P>