Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Joe wrote, in part, 'But, reading the rules, I see Mr. Scanlon is paying homage to Grand Chess in his own way.' GKG response: But I see that Mr. Scanlon wrote: 'Despite its admittedly minor aesthetic and functional flaws...[refering to Grand Chess] then adds 'Grand Chess is easily the best and most playable reinvention of Chess I have ever seen.' So, he is stating that it has minor aesthetic and functional flaws; and is elswhere stating that he has taken this game and improved it.... has taken the Grand Chess and made it Grander Chess, aye, there's the rub.
Once again, I'll put my foot in my mouth up to my shoulder. David, I think I see what you're doing. Here I am. This name is a little tacky. But, reading the rules, I see Mr. Scanlon is paying homage to Grand Chess in his own way. Gary and I have agreed, in an exchange of private emails, that people might take me too seriously. I mention this partly for completeness, but mostly because I wish to copy 1 sentence from my email to Gary for Christine - 'As far as Christine, without talking to her, I'd bet she has no such animal as a GS game to come out, it's most likely her sense of humor coming out.' Hah! Got you on the first try! :) Roberto, you have the best line about the rules of this game. Thank you. Terms like maximum logical consistancy always worry me. I'm glad others are bothered, too. To finish seriously, there may be no legal problem with names like More Granderer Chess II, I'm not up on copyright law. But as a community, this group can exert social pressure, fairly or unfairly. What are the community standards, and what is fair?
As David, I´m also mathematician, and I also prefer avoid claims of 'maximal logical consistency', by various reasons, but, fundamentally, because I don´t understand what exactly it means.
I find it ironic that, seven years after this variant was proposed, people finally make a big fuss over its name. This is not the only Grand Chess variant, and won't be the last Grand Chess variant. Unlike 'Grand Chess 2', which implies the variant was invented by the same person who invented the original game, 'Grander Chess' is more clearly seen to be something invented (or fine-tuned) by someone else.
The whole 'protect all of the pawns' business comes from two things:
As a mathematician, I prefer to avoid making claims of 'maximal logical consistency' for my own chess variants. All things considered, I would rather not comment on pages containing such claims, especially when the author has a plan for reducing the number of draws.
As for the 'business of unprotected Pawns', which was raised in previous comments here, that has been a problem in chess variant design ever since the Mad Queen was invented centuries ago. It is NOT a problem in Shatranj, where the Elephants on the first rank can NEVER attack the unprotected Pawns on the seventh rank. And I for one refuse to worry about the threat of a Knight taking four moves to cross the board and capture an undefended Pawn.
14 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.