Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
1. The inventor's mistaken belief that this is the best chess variant ever invented.
2. Patenting a game whose distinguishing difference from Chess is a lame Bison with an improved movement--an innovation, to be sure, but a small one.
3. His desire to prevent anyone else from using the Falcon in any game (no matter how unlike Falcon Chess).
i can concur with Michael Nelson's second message (dated 12/04/04). in particular i am in agreement with his third point. i believe it is immoral to choke the natural evolution of chess (and variants thereof) by monopolising new aspects of it. i myself have ideas for chess variants and chess rule modifications but would prefer it if other people were allowed to modify and improve my ideas.
the falcon may indeed be original and the basis of the patent, but is it morally fair that nobody else is allowed to attempt to improve falcon chess or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece?
i would like to know how profitable falcon chess is as an enterprise. i would also like to know why the designer bought the patent. is it so that nobody else may attempt to improve falcon chess (or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece)? is the name 'falcon' protected? for example, may i invent another different piece and call it a falcon? or, am i allowed to alter the name and/or appearance of the current falcon piece found in falcon chess? are any monopolies moral?
if falcon chess is a profitable enterprise then it might be worth considering how it could be made more popular if other people were allowed to promote it. if it were made more popular, would it not then increase the value of the falcon chess enterprise? having a monopoly on the falcon piece and falcon chess in general does introduce a choking aspect with regards to the popularity and future of the game. it is this then that leads me to believe that chess (variant) patents are bought for personal financial reasons only. and it is this that most people consider to be immoral and/or abhorent.
Why it takes so long to describe all this? Too much redundancy in this page, sorry.
This game is nothing but original. The so-called Falcon is just Camel+Zebra from fairy chess. I used a similar Buffalo (Camel+Zebra+Knight) in my CVs and many inventors did in these pages on this website.
Also good to know is that a certain Karl Schulz from Austria invented a Falcon-Hunter Chess in 1943 where the Falcon is moving fw like a Bishop and bw like a Rook. This variant is reported in many CV books like Parton's, Boyer's or closer to us, DB Pritchard's. Basically, I think that patenting a CV is a very bad idea because you just encourage players to go away. What is the goal of the inventor, what does he want to protect really ? And if the patent is unavoidable it should be preceded by a serious anteriority research. This patent has no serious claim, it's flawed.
Just wishing to amend my oversight by appropriately placing a 'poor' rating here as well. Please check-out related comments of interest: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?itemid=FalconChess100
As far as Roberto's analysis, he is going to lose his first Falcon Chess in Game Courier because he cannot castle. The first ten moves in that game have been the ugliest ever(out of hundreds of games since 1992)when he unexpectedly advanced four central Pawns(for which I do need to think of a better defense in future). It has been a formless opening with no piece development. What Black is doing is good enough to win because some nasty forks are brewing. So 'weakness' of Bishops' long diagonal comes about because of the bizarre, imprecise opening moves that should backfire. Sorry this comment belongs in Kibbitz.
i am one who is particularly offended by chess variant patents. i will tell you why. but firstly, the patent for falcon chess does not worry me as much as other patents because i cannot see that the falcon piece is really any good. to me it looks like somebody wanted to own a patent and then set about achieving it, rather than somebody invented a great game and recognized that it needed legal protection. i may be wrong, but i cannot see how there could be a sufficient demand for this game to warrant any legal protection, and so any patent for falcon chess looks to me like a 'bad business investment'.
i myself have many ideas for chess variants. sometimes my designs will be too flawed to pursue, but sometimes i will think of something good. i currently have one variant which i am very excited about and i would like to tell the world and get it play-tested. but unfortunately, recent months have taught me that there are business-minded vultures in the chess community who seek to exploit chess for anything they can get. this is why i will keep my best variant a secret. i want it to be public domain, because i am not an american capitalist. i just want people to play my game and for a few people to remember i introduced it. but i fear that i now need to cover every base. for example, to stop somebody tweaking my game in a minor way, i need to somehow account for all possible combinations of starting set-ups and rules. this represents millions of possible permutations. the credibility of my game is virtually destroyed by such an action. but the worst thing is that i will need to ensure my game is given wholly into the public domain. i wish this was easy and that i could talk about it openly. if somebody suggests an improvement to my game, i would not mind at all. but if somebody found an improvement and claimed sole inventorship over my game, i would obviously feel somewhat aggrieved. like Carrera would feel if he knew about gothic chess.
why are chess patents allowed? unfortunately they do exist and unfortunatley they weren't bought in order to help promote those respective variants, or chess itself, but to line the pockets of american capitalists. these individuals are choking the future of chess evolution in my opinion. i think the most insulting thing about people who own chess patents is that they all claim to have made something better than chess, and do not recognize previous similar variants. gothic chess for example was undoubtedly influenced by the Carrera family of variants, but nowhere in the patent document could i find the relevant acknowledgements. i thought that the 'background of the invention' would have mentioned something significant, but it doesn't. why is that? i fear it is because the 'inventor' did not wish to tell the patent reviewers how unoriginal his game is. and instead, heavily implied that he invented the archbishop and chancellor pieces.
i know this message won't get posted, but i thought i would try anyway. i have had good correspondence with Fergus in the past and i trust his ability to decide what should be published on his website or not. if Fergus would like me to write a better essay about chess patent immorality, then i would be willing to do so. i understand that this site was not made to discuss patent morality issues, but it is one of the most popular discussions for some variants and i feel it's a subject which needs to be addressed. i may write my own chess variants site one day, and if i do i would not include any patented chess variants, no matter how good they are. i would not wish to promote any variants which were invented for the purposes of raising money for greedy entrepreneurs. people who probably have little genuine interest in any other chess variants.
an interesting thought, I wonder how the game would play out allowing some mutators? like Suicide, Atomic, Extinction, Alice, Magnetic .. etc .. I issued an invitation for Suicide Falcon Chess .. just to try it out. I really wonder if there are any lost openings to begin with.
I am interested in posting a variant using your Falcon piece and, knowing your feelings on some of your reactions to other uses of it, have decided to seek your approval. The variant will be the first in a series of 3d variants themed on battles between various ancient mythologies. The piece would appear in one army as part of a group of animals with whose heads Egyptian deities are depicted, also including my Ibis and Jackal. All armies throughout the series will have the standard King, Rooks, Knights, and Pawns. I look forward to reading your comments either way. I will check the page for this variant before posting, but if you have any comments to make on another variant of mine in the interim please feel free to give or deny permission there.
Editor Charles, Why don't you re-Rate Falcon Chess from 'None', its having half a dozen Poors and nothing else from your most active readership, surely really a compliment. Or why do you bother to solicit a favourable rating from me more or less outsider with one Poor-Average game under byline? Is it a taunt on your part? (Technically I realize you cannot rerate because of not using your CVP-identification, the same as Ralph Betza used to do with 'gnohmon')I can tell you that you have a Poor game to play in Armies of Faith, and I will give you the courtesy of analyzing why in a long paragraph later, the way I Commented systematically on 400 Large Chesses in 2004 and 2005, whereupon my privilege for unscreened Comments was revoked by your people.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.