[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Rules have been updated with better clarification and downloadable PDF. Thanks and regards.
You can play Jeppseirawan via correspondence here... www.withoutcapricorns.net/forum
you rated your own game 'excellent' ...
Very bad form, Simon, and somewhat rude.
'Are you expecting a response to your comment?' No, i wasn't expecting a response, but i see you gave me one. I also see you rated your game a 2nd time, lol, and i'm not expecting a response to that either. Thanks, and good luck with your game.
The point is, rating is supposed to be a way of expressing an opinion of someone else's variant. Rating your own variant is seen as bad form. The right thing to do now would be to edit your own comments on this page, remove the ratings, post a new comment - without a rating from the start - stating that you have done so to make sense of previous comments, and then wait for others to rate your variant.
I don't give a pedantic toss. Ban me if you want.
From my observations, all Chess Variant inventors seem to want is to rule the world with their pedantic *superior* intellect and have little respect or even expectation of other's intellect or philosophy. In my opinion you should read the variant, understand its philosophical meaning and then similarly rate it as excellent. Seriously, I couldn't care less.
Wow, you rock. Look, i'm sorry if maybe i upset you when all i had to say when i first posted was that you rated your own game. I was just surprised that you did that. But i was going to follow up with my thoughts on your game. i'm always interested in new pieces, and i like the new pieces because i also think the rook/knight and bishop/knight compounds are too strong. Your pieces are not over-powering, so they go nicely with the other normal pieces. Anyway, i'm sorry if i upset you.
The story is this. I live in Britain and have never in my life been respected to my face for my creativity of any kind. I write poetry and music about world peace and inter-religious cooperation, harmony, love and kindness - yet I am actually a victim of hit and runs and mental harassment by higher 'sectors' whereby even my free-law provided solicitor is corrupt. My father has even asked me like some half-zonked zombie why I want visitors to my website and still hasn't read any of my books. My only true friend in life still cannot find a single day to travel 5 miles down the road to visit me. Needless to say I don't intend to live here for much longer.
Anyway, that aside since I am dealing with that via my own sensible and legal procedure.
So I am grateful for your positive comments and I too apologise if I have upset any innocent feelings caught up in the mess. But due to my situation and stress levels I do not wish to continue this discussion nor do I intend to actively partake in many collaborative intellectual discussions over the internet until I find and settle down amongst a friendly society that understand moral respect.
Have fun playing Chess.
Anyway, that aside since I am dealing with that via my own sensible and legal procedure.
So I am grateful for your positive comments and I too apologise if I have upset any innocent feelings caught up in the mess. But due to my situation and stress levels I do not wish to continue this discussion nor do I intend to actively partake in many collaborative intellectual discussions over the internet until I find and settle down amongst a friendly society that understand moral respect.
Have fun playing Chess.
In that case I suggest that an editor intervene and strip out all the ratings to restore the unrated status that the variant should have in the absence of non-inventor ratings.
The more i've looked at this game, the more i like it. I think it is an interesting idea, adding the elements of a pawn to the bishop and knight. One thing is that the new pieces are very easy to grasp and therefore very playable, they mix with the normal pieces very well, and the best thing about them is, they both are less powerful than the rook. Nice!! Hawk: Moves like a bishop or moves 1 square vertically forward. It also has 2 non-capture moves, 1 square vertically backwards or a 2 square vertically forward leap. Elephant: Moves like a knight or has a capture only move, 1 square diagonally forward. It also has a non-capture move, being able to slide 1-3 squares vertically forward. Zillions rates the Hawk more powerful than the Elephant. The Hawk is of course not colorbound. I like the Elephant's capture only move 1 square diagonally forward. The knight, when added with extra power, is often too overbearing, but here, in this game, it is not. Nice idea also giving the knight the 3,1 option with it's very first move, good on the 10x10.
Thanks Christine. Yes you are right the Hawk is slightly more powerful. It often proves to be a more valuable piece. The wonderful thing about the Hawk is that as you get into the Jeppseirawn 'way' so to speak, you find a 'Hawkseye' in your playing strategy - this is whereby you discover how the Hawk is able to seemingly appear out of nowhere and 'snake-bite' your opponent into a very awkward position.
However, that said, the Elephant is very handy in defensive positions. It is often advisable to keep him back until the middle-to-end game, but having him sit by your castled King nearby is often useful.
That said I wouldn't say the Hawk is terribly more powerful than the Elephant since the Elephant can similarly deliver some 'locks, slots & illusions' of its own, dependent on the position.
But it would be interesting to know the exact mathematical difference between the two.
However, that said, the Elephant is very handy in defensive positions. It is often advisable to keep him back until the middle-to-end game, but having him sit by your castled King nearby is often useful.
That said I wouldn't say the Hawk is terribly more powerful than the Elephant since the Elephant can similarly deliver some 'locks, slots & illusions' of its own, dependent on the position.
But it would be interesting to know the exact mathematical difference between the two.
Jepps Hawk and Elephant, with divergent both move/capture and forward/backward, lack clarity and esthetically unsatisfying.
hmm, you say .. '.. with divergent both move/capture and forward/backward, ..' well, that sums up fairy pieces .. you say 'lack clarity', i don't see why??. (edit) ...
I was beginning to look at Jepps' for recent analogy to the best way to introduce Grasshopper and Contragrasshopper. That is, method of pairs leaving the rest mostly the same, or pair-related like Left Schizzy and Right Schizzy. In 'ECV' there are only a couple of attempts to compound moderately with Pawn, contrasted to about 20 bi-compounds with Camel. That of course only covers the era 1900-1990 or so.
@George - You are right, combining with Pawn is always a tantalising and interesting concept, but usually it doesn't take off because of only perceiving its ability based on its one square move. With a 100 Square board it suddenly becomes a slider with a 3 square long first move - this is what enabled me to add more depth to the pawn combo by assigning 3 orthogonal squares to both Elephant and Hawk.
Thanks for taking a look. I know you like to get immersed in the most intricate of variant details and so feel free to analyse this particular pawn combo. ;)
@Hubert - It couldn't be any more self explanatory. I quote:
'Hawks sweep in from a distance and attack prey at their feet. They also hop forwards further than they do backwards.
Elephants charge forwards and have two tusks which point left and right of their next step. They also have an L shaped trunk.'
You must simply lack imagination.
Thanks for taking a look. I know you like to get immersed in the most intricate of variant details and so feel free to analyse this particular pawn combo. ;)
@Hubert - It couldn't be any more self explanatory. I quote:
'Hawks sweep in from a distance and attack prey at their feet. They also hop forwards further than they do backwards.
Elephants charge forwards and have two tusks which point left and right of their next step. They also have an L shaped trunk.'
You must simply lack imagination.
Colorful description and insulting rejoinder does not give pieces any more clarity. Multiple elements, different forward/backward, different movement/capturing. Arrogant responses does not change this.
To Jones, there are some fairy pieces with good clarity (grasshopper, commoner, mastodon, camel, immobilizer, etc.) some with moderate (cardinal, marshal, wildebeest) and many with poor clarity (nightrider, bifurcators, coordinator, almost any from Gilman pages, many Betzas, Jeppseirawan). Poor clarity is main reason why so very few play or are interested in variants. If you like complex compound pieces with poor clarity, good for you, you play those games. Not saying you should not. But my opinion is that more clarity is better and this is page for opinions.
ok, sorry for my post, you are right, you are entitled to your opinion. It's just that, it is your opinoin, your personal taste, about the type of pieces you like. Because you like certain type of pieces, does not make a game that has other kind of pieces 'poor'. You would rate all the old medieval shogi games 'poor' i am guessing. They have pieces like .. 'moves 1-2 squares vertically, 1-3 squares diagonally and any amount of squares horizontally.' Even pieces that move in more harder ways to learn. There are pieces i don't really like, certain compound pieces, other people do not prefer them too, but heaps of other people like them. I am not going to go and rate these games 'poor', just because i personally dont like these pieces. when i first made games, i was not understanding much about 'piece density', and i made games that are 'horror's', because of too many pieces, these games can be rated 'poor', because of that reason. All they do now, is show what not to do, they show how a game is destroyed because of too many pieces, lol. But to rate a game 'poor' because you dont personally like pieces ... well, not the right thing to do, i think. Anyway, that is personal opinion i guess, haha. Sorry if i upset, my bad, i got to .. not post so fast hehe. All the best.
Christina, if a game is all about two added pieces, is the only thing new about it, and I don't like the new pieces, you want me to rate game excellent? I think piece+pawn combinations are unesthetic. I think Jeppsereiwan is not a good variant because the new pieces are not very good, so I said so.
And yes I would rate many medieval chesses and old shogis poor because of too many different pieces types with not enough clarity. But Jeppsereiwan pieces are even more inelegant than those because of two types of divergence. And if it is inappropriate to rate a game poor when that is what you think then editors should remove that option. I rated game poor based on unoriginality (minor downgrade of existing games) and inelegance of new pieces. If editors want a 'don't say anything if you can't say nice' website that is their decision. But then you will see too many new low quality variants (there are too many already, some inventors think every impulse is great new variant).
@Hubert Oh well, guess it's just not your game. But there are zillions of others here. Go visit some of the other pages, see if you can find a Hawk that moves like a Bus and an Elephant that moves like a Kangaroo.
Incidentally there is no need to give negative feedback on any game which is why I as a member here never do and only ever give positive feedback. If a game is truly poor it will not receive the necessary ratings or positive comments required to be noticed anyway.
Just my opinion. ;)
Incidentally there is no need to give negative feedback on any game which is why I as a member here never do and only ever give positive feedback. If a game is truly poor it will not receive the necessary ratings or positive comments required to be noticed anyway.
Just my opinion. ;)
Oh by the way everyone, this game is also included as the fourth book to The Jeppsian Book Of The Living, so if you like philosophy, poetry, music and chess, then you can't lose.
;)
;)
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.