Comments by Gerd Degens

@ H.G. or/and Fergus
The following HTML code does not seem to be translated correctly into GAME code for Game Courier. In the Play Test Aplet everything works fine, in GAME Courier the promotion zones of the files 'a' and 'i' are not recognized. There seems to be a problem somewhere. Can you please help!

<script type="text/javascript" src="/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js?nocache=true"></script>
<div class="idiagram">
files=9
ranks=9
promoZone=1
promoChoice=SNBRQ
graphicsDir=/graphics.dir/alfaeriePNG/
squareSize=50
graphicsType=png
symmetry=none
lancer (vertical):P:fmFfWfnDfcnH:pawn:d1,e1,f1,,d9,e9,f9
morph=*********////////
lancer (horizontal):S:rmFrWrnDrcnH:berolinapawn:b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7,b8,,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,h7,h8
morph=*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*/*.......*
knight:N:N:knight:a3,a7,,i3,i7
bishop:B:B:bishop:a1,a9,,i1,i9
rook:R:R:rook:a2,a8,,i2,i8
queen:Q:Q:queen:a4,a6,,i4,i6
king:K:K:king:a5,,i5
</div>

Thanks again!

@ H.G.
I would like to declare files (in my case 'a' and 'i') as a promotion zone for pawns. Is that possible?

@Fergus
Is it possible to prevent the board from flipping in Game Courier? With 'Crossfire 90 Degrees' the board rotation doesn't seem to be particularly necessary.

Thank you both.

"Black Holes"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

At first sight: I haven't understood it yet and will think about it. Thank you in the meantime.

@H.G.. 
Can a figure be displayed in a third color (not white, not black) in the Play Test applet (without separate programming)? Thanks in advance.

"Crossfire"

 - on Game Courier / Invitation here

It seems unfair to discriminate against such variants by delaying their publication.

It makes no sense to 'deny' the existence of Interactive Diagrams just because there is a very vague assumption that the publication of others will be delayed.

It would just be another item that is asked for in the Index Informtion. And I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination and unfairness.

This is the well-known problem of claim and reality not matching. Structuring a page according to 'Introduction', 'Setup', 'Pieces', 'Rules' etc. does not seem to solve the problem.

The problem of a small number of editors and a large number of authors is inherent in the system and can hardly be solved either. Whether a kind of 'purgatory' could be the solution here, dear Jean-Louis, is again a question of internal organization.

In my view, interactive diagrams and their moving diagrams could contribute to solving the problem. On such a basis, it should be much easier for editors to revise proposals.

I think it could be communicated that proposals based on interactive diagrams are preferred for review. And editors could use the time saved in this way more for proposals without such diagrams.

Could make the problem easier.

If limiting the number of variants to be submitted were really a measure to improve quality, then it would make more sense to reduce the number. But that would have a demotivating effect.

But I think Kevin's suggestion - if I understood him correctly - is a very good one, namely to set up a kind of test page where interactive diagrams can be stored under 'Notes' in order to save them for later. There you can test your variants and compare your ideas. In my opinion a good solution.

Where are we now? Will everything stay the same? Or are there partial improvements for authors?

The information does not help: no indication of quantity and time. It can't just be a matter of waiting. A little too much randomness.

Surely a pragmatic solution must be possible?
 

I suggest that the number of proposals be increased to 10 or 15.

Your argument is - with respect - illogical. Whether authors submit more or less has no effect on the capacity of the editors. The editors work off what they can . If authors submit more, then they just have to wait longer. But at least they can continue working.

Dear H.G. This is only true if the authors are very unevenly creative, because only then can you level out an issue. But who publishes a countless number of variants?

All in all, the matter is not evenly distributed; the editors are the tug on the scales.

O.K., if you say that these are the general conditions, then any discussion is superfluous. But you don't seriously want to take such a one-sided view.

Sorry Bob, I can't follow your argument.

When the editors decide to publish variants is beyond our control. That could be tomorrow or in three months' time.

They (the editors) can feel comfortable to take action. But why should I be prevented from continuing to be creative?

To the editors: I would like to present further variants. Unfortunately I can't, as only a limited number of suggestions are possible.

It would therefore be nice if a few of my suggestions could be published - or rejected.

On this occasion: Why is the number of unpublished suggestions limited?