The following are readers' comments and ratings for the page Four Towers.
| Date | Rating | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 26 Jun 2001 | None | I agree -- it's basically too complicated. The detachability of the pieces is a last-minute addition to the concept, and could, itself, be detached from the game without hurting anything. The only hard part, it seems to me, is remembering what all of the pieces do on the towers. But it seemed inelegant to me to have some of them do nothing, so I tried to make all of the concepts as straightforward as possible. --JA |
| 26 Jun 2001 | None | PBA, apparently you all have seduced Jim into joining the Dark Side of the CV Force :-) |
| 26 Jun 2001 | Good | Is this the same Jim Aikin who wrote:
"I've come to feel that a good variant is one that's as playable as possible. You should be able to concentrate on tactics, not on remembering how the pieces move. That, in turn, suggests that a good variant is one that doesn't change too many of the classical rules of chess."Actually, I sort of like this game -- it's ambitious, and has interesting ideas. And certainly I can't point fingers at someone for piling too much into a variant, (<g>), but I can't help thinking that the towers, dragons, and merging pieces (which has been done, but differently) all belong in different variants. PBA |
Last modified: Sunday, April 1, 2012
