Comments by joejoyce

My info is that invent and play is defunct - I tried to get in with
hyperchess. I'd be happy to trade games with you.
                                                     Joe Joyce

I can tell you from personal experience that a planar-type piece is even
more powerful in 4D chess than in 3D. I would also recommend a smaller
board than 8x8x8x8. The problem with any planar-type piece is that it's
so powerful that you have to clog the board up with lesser pieces to
prevent instant checkmates. The more powerful the strong pieces, the more
plentiful the weak pieces is a really easy and very bad trap to fall into,
if you want a game that can be played by humans. And simple leapers work
fine in 4D. I used a knight that no longer has the leaping ability, and it
kicks butt, for my version of hyperchess. In 2D, you can add a lot of
pieces; the complications are in piece interaction. By the time you get to
4D, the board provides a good bit of the complication, so the pieces should
be simple, to balance. In hyperchess (does this need a new name - am I
infringing - how does Hyperchess 4D sound - that's what I thought). In
H4D only the standard 8 pieces and 8 pawns per side are used, on a 4x4x4x4
board, giving a starting piece density of 12.5%. And the movement rules are
basically simple translations from 2 to 4D. I would argue that good
movement rules and piece densities are very board-dependent. Ok, guess
I'm saying geometry-dependent, both the topology and the exact
measurements (as I'm finding out in a variant that mixes 2D-moving and
4D-moving pieces; ie: some pieces treat the board as 2D, some as 4D, and
some may choose.)
Is there a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Guess I'm too new
to know.                               Joe

The bishop 'color-change' moves pretty much need to be capturing moves.
The extremely low piece density and the change in the pawn's move/capture
basically force this. The pieces need to be sort of 'sticky' to balance
the density; and the somewhat stronger pawns (2 pawns can support each
other)to an extent force the stronger bishop. I think the knight is also
stronger, but this is because the geometry of a 4x4x4x4 board favors a
piece that moves [+/- 1, +/- 2,0,0]. Stronger relative to the rook in this
game, that is. I'm not sure how a rook in this game compares in 'actual'
strenght to a 2D or 3D rook. The size of the board, small, favors the power
of the rook.

Thanks for the comment. The king hold rule took me about 2 years to come
up with.

I am not understanding these 2 sentences:
'The queen may not move into or through check - except to capture the
enemy queen. This is like the king in chess, which may never move into
check except to capture the enemy king...'
How can a royal piece capture its' opposite number without first putting
both itself and the opponent's royal piece in check, which I always
thought was illegal? I'd love to at least push the pieces around for this
game, (especially since it's destined, apparently, to be in the 2nd
tournament) but until I understand the above 2 sentences, I can't.
Someone please explain.

About 8ish, Eastern Standard Time, New Year's eve, while I was waiting for
my wife to get ready to go out, I was looking at Hans Bodlaender's
pictures and 'variants' for what may be the world's cheapest (and
worst) chess set. They were so enjoyable I posted a comment about them
brightening up an otherwise quiet time in my evening. The date stamp
showed I was the first post on Jan. 1, 2005. It's one thing to announce
to the world you're a geek by designing a chess game that only you think
is 4 dimensional, but it's a whole 'nother thing to have the site
you're trying to gain some credibility on (and I'm sure this is not
helping) announce to the world that you've got nothing better to do at
midnight and beyond New Year's day than look at chess variants. While
this may be true - I've had much worse New Years' - it would be nice if
the date stamp were accurate. ;)

Fergus; some thoughts on Bachelor Chess.
	I  went to bed swearing I would not get involved in this, but I woke up
thinking about geometry and Bachelor Chess. I believe the geometry of the
board is a key factor in any game, the first factor to make or break a
game. So, I set up and played your first variant a bit. First, I assumed
the board is a checkerboard, with a white square on the white player's
right corner, so I covered the original 'A' file and set the pieces up.
Both white bishops are on white squares, both black bishops on black; an
interesting asymmetry. The white king starts on a black square; and the
black, on a white, as are their castling squares. Here are two openings I
played:
1)	d4		d5
2)	f1-e3		e6 rather than c6, allowing check
3)	e1-b4		f1-d2 white attempts trade of B for N, black   
declines, but N placement blocks Bs
4)	b3		b7
5)	c4		c5
6)	Pxc5		Pxc5
7)	b4-a5 check	e7-b6 if 7) ... d8-e7, 8) PxP PxP 9) NxP check
8)	BxN check	PxB
9)	PxP		PxP
10)	NxP		a8-a6
white may continue by castling or by c1-g5 check, with much the better
game
The way this played out, I felt black should not directly contest the
center of the board with 1) ... d5
The second opening:
1)	d4		e3 
2)	c1-f4		b8-c6
3)	c3		d5
4)	b1-d2		b6
5)	e4		c8-b7
6)	PxP		PxP
7)	f1-e3		c6-e7
8)	BxP check	KxB probably a serious blunder on white's part
9)	c3-c4		a8-d8
10)	PxP		NxP possibly better if ... BxP
11)	NxN check	BxN
12)	O-O check	e8-c6 white has a passed pawn that is going nowhere fast for
a lost bishop

As I am not the best of players, and cannot play chess against myself,
these openings are not of the highest quality - the B sacrifice, in
particular, was poor, as it could not be followed up. White may actually
have an edge in this variant, but I am certainly not good enough to 
tell, only to suspect this is the case.
However, I do get some clearer impressions of this variant. I think the geometry
is important, as I feel these games are not as subtle as FIDE chess. Two
of six non-royal pieces can never directly interact*, yet they attack the
two most likely squares the opponent's king will occupy. Checks appear to
be easier in the opening. I always had the urge to trade one of my bishops
for the 'opponent's' knight, believing this is advantageous. I think
the openings and patterns of threats are considerably reduced, and less
subtle, because of the geometry. The game gives me more the feel of a
bludgeon than a rapier. This could be because of my style of play,
however. I do believe the knight is worth more than the bishop, and I'd
definitely prefer to have 2 knights and 1 bishop against 2 bishops and 1
knight. I would also think this admittedly very preliminary analysis has some
relevance for your other 7x8 variants and the 58 square variants, 
as the geometry is basically similar. I would suggest a variant of this
game on a 7x9 board, but I wonder if the draw potential goes up. For what
my opinion is worth, I think this is an interesting variant, but FIDE
chess is better, and better because of its' geometry. The 8x8 board
allows better pawn moves in the opening and balances the bishops.
*This would seem to increase the subtlety on the surface, but that's not
the impression I got moving pieces.
I see Peter Aronson** and Doug Chatham anticipated a couple of my observations. 
To Doug, I believe the answer to your question is: 'yes'.
To Peter, I'm real new at this, could you direct me to your sources? Thanks. 
**My error on confusing Spinster queens and Sinister queens - 
apparently Mr. Aronson does not confirm my suspicion that white has 
the advantage in the 7x8 variants, as Sinister Queens is 8x8.

Shatranj to Modern Chess, step by step.
In the course of my tournament game of Shatranj with Roberto Lavieri, and
the current game of Modern Shatranj we're playing, I've had opportunity
to think about the steps between Shatranj and today's chess. I believe
there are 6 basic steps between the two games in movement, and maybe 3 in
promotion rules. Each movement step changes Shatranj somewhat, giving a
playable game, when the steps are presented in reasonable order. Promotion
changes also affect the game, but they are not as basic, and may be
'folded in' to the movement changes. Promotion goes from only generals
to generals and lost pieces to freely-chosen pieces. 

Shatranj has 7 non-royal pieces, 5 of which are short range. Modern chess
(orthochess) has 7 non-royal pieces, 5 of which are long range. So, in
shatranj, the pieces are relatively weak; in chess, strong. In reasonable
order, the steps between shatranj and chess are:
1) The general (queen) goes from 1 square diagonally only to the king's
move. This is the least change from shatranj.
2) The elephant (bishop) goes from a 2-square diagonal jump (allowing it
only 8 positions on the board) to a 1-square diagonal move and the
2-square jump. At some point, the jump is lost, but probably later than
this.
3) Castling is allowed.
4) The double first move of pawns is allowed. En passant logically comes
here, as an adjunct to the double step, rather than a seperate step,
occurring later.
5) The bishops gain their modern move, and lose their jump, although an
interesting variant would allow them a 2-square jump with capture of the
intervening piece.
6) The queen gains her modern move, creating modern chess.
While numbers 3 and 4 may be reversed, these 6 steps are, pretty much, the
least (remaining) change from the previous step toward modern chess. 

Modern Shatranj incorporates the first 2 steps and intermediate promotion
rules, making a 'strong' Shatranj. Using steps 1 through 4 and freer
promotion would likely give a game that is still Shatranj-like but more
modern in some aspects of play. It would be a Hypermodern Shatranj. Steps
1 through 5 and totally free promotion would give us an Old Chess variant.


This is not meant as a history of chess, which I don't know, but a
speculation on how chess could evolve, and a way to see the effects of the
increasing range and power of the pieces. Is this worth putting in as a
variant? Or has this all been done before, and better?

Congrats on getting the site back up. We've missed it. 
There are a few questions that beg to be asked, in 2 categories:
   What happened, and why, and we don't expect this again, do we?
   How will the tournament be adjusted for time?
Again, great to see this site back up. Thanks for your efforts. Sincerely.

Is there anything the members can do to help avoid site problems?

A few thoughts:
	There are 2 equally valid ways of moving chess to higher dimensions:
'extending' or 'expanding', with extending being linear and expanding
being planar. Linear pieces are weaker, and planar pieces very much take
on the character of the 'Mad Queen', in being so much more powerful than
their 2D brethern. However, 'planar pieces' may be inherently too
powerful as a concept - consider the extension to 4D, where a rook would
move in a 3D volume of its' own choice, there being 4 different 3D
volumes this hypothetical rook could move in. Even in 3D, the actual
planar pieces used are the most limited and weak version. The strongest
planar piece could get to a location if any one of all its' possible
paths were open. An average planar piece could get to a location if at
least half the possible paths are open. The weakest planar piece is one
that is blocked by merely a single piece. (This is somewhat like damming a
river by throwing a stone into it.) Now it's true that using the weakest
possible planar pieces makes it easier to visualize moves, but using more
powerful versions of planar pieces should shorten the games and make
checkmate noticably easier. This approach may eliminate the 'need' for
restricting the king to get a reasonable chance to mate, if the 'weak'
planars still have trouble. You might also consider 3D movers, in a
'weakened' piece form, as, for example, a 'baby 3D rook' that could
move to any open square within a 5x5 cube centered on the piece, just as
the king can move to any square in a 3x3 cube centered on it. Of course,
this 'baby 3D rook' would require at least an 8x8x8 board to dilute
its' power. This rook, guarded by a friendly piece should be able to move
next to the enemy king and mate it.
	The 6x6x6 shatranj 3D sounds interesting. I, too, have been looking at
shatranj pieces for the past few months, and, with C. Bagley-Jones, have
made a 'Shatranj Capablanca' variant, with a knight-alfil and a
knight-dababba; and have also, for Modern Shatranj, tried out 2 'new'
pieces, the knight-ferz and knight-wazir, which seem to work quite nicely.
 I'd expect that short-range pieces in a 3D shatranj game would find it
useful to have those little 'extra' moves. And I think 6x6x6 is probably
about a perfect size for a 3D board. I'd be interested in playtesting such
a game.
	Finally (I hear echoes of 'about time!'), the not-so-elusive king.
Designing a sitting-duck king, as has been done, may not be the best way
to increase mates. I will, once again, float the idea of a 'king hold'
rule. I did a 4D game, 4x4x4x4, using linear pieces and an extremely low
piece density; and the king was all but uncatchable, even though it could
move to only 16 locations. The game could not be won by a king and 3
queens vs a bare king. Effectively, I had no game until the king hold
rule. The board is laid out as 16 4x4 2D boards, and the king hold rule
states that a king, moving onto the same 2D board as the opponent's king,
prevents the opponent's king from moving off that board, until the
'holding' king either moves or is chased off that board. This allows a
standard 2D checkmate, with no 'extra' pieces required. While this is a
restriction of the king's move, it is only temporary, and to maintain the
restriction on the opponent's, one must move one's own king into
potential danger and restrict its' move in the same way. This method
seems easily adaptable to 3D.

Dear Annoying:
    Are you telling me that, 50 years ago, my second grade teacher, Sister
Mary Ruler, was wrong when she drilled the class in possessives? I quote:  
 ''It's' means 'it is'; 'its'' means  'that belongs to it'.' 

     I hereby confess to over-punctuating, as I have already confessed to
having trouble with names. Suggestions for names would be appreciated (but
I remind you this is a family site), and will be considered.
     
     Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Gifford and Mr. Pedant for their
comments. As my computer skills are about as obsolete as my English usage,
it may be a while before I can add rules illustrations or presets, much as
I would like to do so.

John, thank you for the reference. I've been using multiple sets with
colored twist-ties, or sets of slightly-varying sizes (and often
slightly-varying colors) with the 'big' rooks and bishops representing
chancellors and cardinals, and such. Now, if I had only taken shop...

Thank you for your comments and references, David. This elephant does not
show up in the CV piecelopedia, but does in piece descriptions within the
rules of both games you mention. How many others, who knows, but it seems
to be a logical 'new' piece. This does demonstrate how difficult it is
to come up with something truly new in the way of pieces. Hasn't stopped
anyone from trying yet, including me.
A comprehensive set of rules for shatranj variants is, based on just these
variants posted in 2005, very possibly doomed. Boards, pieces, setups and
even setup strategy all have expanded considerably. A shatranj
piecelopedia and a book on shatranj variants might be the best we could
hope for.

Hello, David. I would be happy to swap games with you. I'd love to try an
8x10 shatranj game. It will probably take me a few days to get a skeleton
GC preset together, non-rules-enforcing so we have the choice of specific
pieces*. Never played Makruk, or any of your variants, so whatever you
want is fine with me. Ten moves a week is at the upper limit of my
practical ability, but five per is a good number. Looking forward to it.
Sufficient mating force: the pieces I'm inclined to use in our game of
'great shatranj' (an awkward name for an 8x10 size) are the 1-step
slide, 2-step jump pieces, like the Modern (Shatranj) Elephant. The
dabbabah-wazir ('dababba') steps one or jumps two orthogonally. Clearly,
the 2-step dababba-rider Gary Gifford and I are using in the Grand Shatranj
test game can, with the king, checkmate a bare king, having a move of 1, 2,
3, or 4 squares. But the Modern Dababba moves only 1 or 2 squares. Can king
and dababba checkmate lone king? 
*great rationalization for my being unable to do anything more than gut a
pre-existing preset.

carlos carlos, where are you? You own me a move in the tournament, and
you're running out of time. Our game of Switching Chess is in week 2, and
you haven't made a move yet. I'd like a win, but shouldn't get it by
default.
If anyone has Carlos' address, please email him or send me the address -
thanks. Joe Joyce

This looks like a very interesting game. It should be much faster playing
than shatranj, given the coupling of a great increase in the number of
long-range pieces with the forward setup. Could get some fierce shoot-outs
with this setup. Some basic numbers:
                    Shatranj    FIDE     Mir
# non-royal pieces    7          7        9
# short-range         5          2        4
# long-range          2          5        5
So, while shatranj and Fide are opposites, Mir matches FIDE for long-range
pieces and all 4 short-range Mir pieces are jumpers. But, while the rooks
cancel out, the cannons and superbishop don't quite seem the equal of
bishops and queen. They're certainly not quite as easy to use. Still, all
other things being equal, I wouldn't want FIDE in a FIDE-Mir 'Chess with
Unequal Armies' game.  
I would love a copy of the zrf when it's done.

I've been a member of this site (and online) a little over a year. I have
never seen the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants nor had any dealings with
Mr. Pritchard. However, in the brief time I've been here, I've seen his
name cited over and over again, as authoritative. I believe David Howe is
right. Whether or not this site ever generally recognizes people in
addition to games, I think Mr. Pritchard more than deserves the
recognition and thanks of people who love what chess can be. Surely it is
the rare person like David Pritchard who has helped create the conditions
and situations that all the rest of us enjoy. I feel this site would be
remiss in not finding a way to memorialize him. My sincere condolences to
his family and friends. 
M J Joyce III

What are the minimum computer skills needed?

What happens when a game you've won, and it says 'You have won' in the
game log, doesn't show up in the calculations, even though you can call
it up by name from the game logs with your password, and it shows as a win
when you list all your games? The game in question is
Omega Chess oncljan-joejoyce-2005-96-245
Admittedly, it's not a good win, but it balances out one of the
almost-won games where my opponent disappeared just before the end. (I see
the value of timed games now.) Actually, I hadn't brought it up before
because it is such a poor win that I didn't feel I deserve it, but I
realized that if it was included, I just might get up to 1500 briefly,
before I lose to Carlos, David, Gary..., and that'd be a kick for someone
who's only been playing a year or so after, depending on how you wish to
count time off, 30-40 years.  
I will say the ratings have brought out everyone's competitive spirits.
As for me, I'll happily carry a general rating that takes in all my
games: playtests, coffee-house, and tournament; but, since people are
asking for so many things, I'd like to add one more. Would it be possible
or practical to allow people to choose one or more subsets of games for a
specific rating. For example, I am currently playing several variants of
shatranj now, one of which is 'grand shatranj'. Could I be allowed to
put any number of game names into a 'Rate these games only' field, so I
could get a combined rating for say 6 shatranj variants plus Grand Chess?
And then another for the 'big board' games, and so on?

Yes, it does, and on poor Roberto's page, too. So I traveled this comment
to a new spot.

I feel I have to weigh in on the subject of re-using grand,
well-established names for new variants, as I am soon to post presets for
my 'Two Large Shatranj Variants', respectively Great and Grand Shatranj.
I agree in general with the opinions expressed by Fergus Duniho and Gary
Gifford on Grand Chess 2, but there are circumstances where this general
prohibition of re-using a name should not hold. Specifically, I wrote to
Christian Freeling to ask his permission to call one variant 'Grand
Shatranj', and before I posted 2Large I sent him a copy to vet. Had he in
any way objected to me about the name or the game, I would have changed it;
and should he have any objections now or in the future, I will change it.
Should it be felt necessary, I can produce the emails. In my posting of
2Large, I make clear exactly what my debt to Mr. Freeling and Grand Chess
is. Under these circumstances, I feel my use of the name and setup for
Grand Shatranj is acceptable, even if I am over-reaching. Now, back to
having fun.

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?

Sam, I believe you have crossed the Rubicon into wargame design with your
game proposal in CoT. You have all pieces moving each turn (in what
order?) and ranged combat with odds for success, a hex board and terrain;
all you need is to call it a wargame, and maybe add a combat results table
for all 'combats' between 2 opposing pieces, not just the ranged ones. I
would recommend to anyone HG Wells 'Little Wars' for a fascinating look
at wargaming from some of the history and how to of wargaming to pictures
of an influential author on hands and knees in miniature battle scenes.
It's not quite chess. I see a line between chess variants and wargames
that is crossed several times in Crossing the Rubicon.

Well, you'd certainly want a large board, so starting at 10x10 is good.
Since all the pieces in this game jump (but not [currently] the pawns) the
effects of square loss would be effectively reduced. You might even want to
let the 'High Priestess' replace (or even add) squares. And if you did
that, you might let the 'Minister' destroy squares. Their ranges would
logically be any empty squares they could legally move to. They would
cancel each other out at squares within the range of both. But letting the
Minister destroy occupied squares would swing the game far over to offense,
unless, maybe, you allowed the High Priestess to resurrect... Anyway, that
the 2 pieces have limited movement (for ABS) is a decent limitation for
pieces that can create or destroy squares. The priestess could extend the
board; a decent restriction would be that a square surrounded on 3 of 4
sides by emptiness cannot be connected to a square that will have more
than 1 side next to emptiness. So bridges would have to be 2 squares wide.
This particular application of player power over the board probably pushes
well into the shallows of the Rubicon itself. This is terrain in a
wargame. But it is true that holes are as good a terrain abstract as
squares. How many chess variants have specific pieces that create or
destroy the board itself? That destruction of squares could well be going
too far, especially since this is not a wormhole variant we're talking
about. That would be a different game.

Hi, Mats. I hate to preempt you, but I refer you to the 'Jumping General'
in 'Two Large Shatranj Variants'. It appears as the queen analog in Grand
Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, both games
currently being played on this site. It does work very nicely. It even has
a new unique graphic which incorporates an elephant and a war machine,
which appears in current games. And as soon as this computer/internet
illiterate figures out how to accomplish it, the games will be available
as public presets with unique rules sets. And rather than go through
lawyers, I suggest we duel it out. After all, I can establish prior
copyright; I just need better computer skills and advertising. If Gary is
willing, I choose him as my second. And should there be an interested
party lurking, feel free to choose sides. 
Seriously, this does point out the extreme difficulty of coming up with a
genuinely new piece, especially one that is actually broadly playable.
I'd be surprised if I were the first to propose this piece. I am curious
as to how you figured its value as that of a rook. Short range jumping
pieces are apparently not well represented in popular games. Is this a
defect in the nature of short-range leapers, or just random chance that
this piece is only really represented by the knight- and alfil-types?

Okay, count me in. I can come up with at least one thing by Christmas. :-)

Gentlemen, let me stick an oar into these murky waters. My first question
is: what do you mean by 'big board'? If you accept FIDE as the standard,
then anything above 8x8 is 'big'. I would argue against that and the
ideas that you need really powerful pieces, or even many pieces, and more
than 1 move per turn. (At least up to, say 25x25 ;-) At 19x19, Go does
quite well with merely putting non-moving pieces on the board one at a
time. I've worked at 'large' sized boards (10x8, 10x10, 9x21, 16x16)
and, now that I'm looking at it, the general trend is the larger the
board, the fewer the pieces, and the ranges in 'linear' distance often
decrease, but that's because the 9x21 is conceptually also 3x3x3x7 and
the 16x16 is similarly also 4x4x4x4, so you can't go very far in any one
'direction'. Okay, you might think that last bit is all bs, but Go still
elegantly demonstrates you don't need powerful pieces for a large board.
And the 9x21 game (189 cells) is a chancellor chess variant using only the
standard 9 pieces and pawns per side of chancellor chess. The 16x16 game
(256) uses only the standard 8 pieces and pawns of FIDE per side. 
Andy Thomas has made some excellent points. I think he's right in all of
them. I just need to know what size we're talking about, and am curious
about the line between chess and wargames, like say 'Axis and Allies'. I
would recommend HG Wells book 'Little Wars' as an excellent example of
what is clearly over the line. (It's also got great photos.)

Hi, Gary. A good part of our difference is merely a semantic debate. I,
too, agree with the ideas you express: 'My point was simply that large
boards are a good home for long-range pieces and more types of pieces.'
That's 100% accurate, and I agree with you. My problem here is how you
define 'large', and if greater numbers, longer ranges, and more
different pieces are required by larger (not 'large') boards. The point
about Go is that a 19x19 board is small enough that 2 players merely
putting unmoving stones on the board one at a time in alternating turns is
a good game. And it isn't even chess. My 16x16 4D game uses only a
standard FIDE piece set, with close to FIDE moves, and starts with a piece
density of 12.5% My 9x21 game starts with a piece density of 19%. Grand
Chess, as well as 2 of my large shatranj variants, all start with a 40%
piece density on a 10x10 board. Maybe my argument here is one of
aesthetics. Larger boards do not require larger numbers of pieces. Elegant
simplicity is a valuable goal in game design, for it increases the
playability of the game. And 10x10, or 20x20, is not 'large' - for
square, even-numbered boards, 8x8 is about the smallest size that gives a
decent game - clearly 2x2 and 4x4 are useless, and 6x6 is 'the easy game
for the ladies and children' and early computers, so 8x8 is the bottom.
For odd numbered boards, 5x5 is useless, and 7x7 is Navia Dratp. Still not
much room below 8x8, and 7x7's can have their bishop setup problems.
Please, define your terms. ;-)
On piece 'powers' - this is where I was tongue-in-cheek, in describing
pieces with diminishing *linear* ranges. On a 4x4x4x4 board*, you can only
possibly go 3 at most from your starting position in any one direction, but
you have a lot of directions in which to go. A simple rook, moving
linearly, can reach 12 positions on this board. A knight, in the middle,
can reach 23, using only its 'L-shaped' move. Even from a corner, it
reaches 12. *Of course, the board is actually physically 16x16, divided
into 4x4 sections, and movement rules simulate the 4x4x4x4 board, but you
could use Great Shatranj pieces, none of which move more than 2 squares,
quite successfully on that board. 
I am not arguing against any position as much as I'm arguing for mine. If
you say 10x10 is big, and requires at least 25 pieces per side to maintain
the 50% starting density, and we need amazons at least, then I'm arguing
against you. ;-) Enjoy. Joe (and I know I left a lot out, but next time)

Hi, Gary! You always take me so seriously. :-) 
 1 You've defined 'large, medium and small' in reference to FIDE. Okay,
then I stand by my initial statement. ;-)
 2 On women, children, and early computers: When I did a bit of research
on 6x6 a while back, as well as Los Alamos Chess, I ran into variants from
the 1800's that were specifically designed as easy chess for the ladies
and (precocious?) children. First, I will say, for the record, I am a New
York liberal, living smack dab in the middle of the NY metro area, on the
east bank of the Hudson River. Then I will (gently) point out that the
line you object to was sarcastic, and that NY liberals (even if they are
only fake liberals and don't really mean it) are not likely to seriously
espouse such a position. Second, after the 2 extremely bitter and
hard-fought draws I've played against zcherryz, if you think I'd
seriously maintain men are innately better than women at chess, you're
crazier than I am. And as far as kids, I'm 58. I have a 32 year-old son
and a daughter who will be 25 in 25 days, and comes off our car insurance!
As far as I'm concerned, probably most of the people on this site are
kids. And I can tell ya, I'm certainly not beating them all. :-)
On the serious side, we do have a few points of agreement, in that we both
apparently feel (from what you said) that 8x8 is actually the smallest
decent size for a game. [Before the winners of the 44, 43, 42... square
contests kill me en masse, let me admit to a number of awesome small
exceptions discussed some other time.] And we can agree to call 10x10 and
20x20 'large'. But I still maintain that a large board gives much
greater scope for elegant simplicity. Too many pieces can muddy the theme;
you might as well play a wargame. [I design those, too.]
As always, these discussions with you get me thinking. Enjoy! Joe

I don't understand what you mean about having to make pages for the presets. Aren't their pages just like the following:

Atlantean Barroom Shatranj which is the url for Atlantean Barroom Shatranj? I'd love for people to actually know I made the presets. I suppose it's questions like these that demonstrate why I'm not an editor...

Okay, Gary, I stand chastened. 'Scum of the Earth reporting for
barnacle-scraping duty.' I meant no offense in relating what most 19th
century men thought about the general abilities and capacities of women
and children, conveyed in the form of a game deliberately dumbed down to
allow for their 'innate inferiority'. And I included computers in that
disadvantaged group with Los Alamos chess - a 6x6 game dumbed down for the
early computers. I was implicitly contrasting statements from the past with
what we know now. I don't think I could beat today's computers, either.
You wouldn't need a Deep Blue to beat me, a shallow HAL would be more
than adequate. ;-)
Your note made my morning. I'll try to be better, but I'm not a serious
person, so I may slip. I am, however, a serious designer - you know I'd
love to design games professionally, but it's a killer field to break
into with no computer skills. So I enjoy what I do and maybe some day,
I'll get lucky. In the meantime, I have a deep interest in the theory and
practice of game design. And this topic of big board CV's, while I
undoubtedly will never make a penny selling chess variants, is something I
find extremely interesting and very useful. You've seen a couple of my
non-chess games, Spaceships and 4War. I see very strong connections
between them and chess, on more than one level. 4War grew out of
Hyperchess. And I'm just starting to explore a Spaceships chess variant.
So I don't see a sharp line between 'genres'. They cross-pollinate. 
I'm very interested in this topic, but I'd like to see a number of
approaches to big board variants. For example, I oppose adding pieces
because there's more room on the board. (This is undoubtedly a minority
position, however. So I'm working to get the viewpoint adequately
represented and examined.) And I oppose having a large number of different
pieces because you've got all these pieces you just added because you had
more room and now you're trying to figure out what to do with them. This
affects playability in many ways. And I think playability is the first
consideration of game design. Not the only, but the first. Enjoy. Joe

Great, Tony! Three pages, with 5 presets, are now waiting for approval.

David, thank you very much.

The basic idea of this game is excellent. The geometry of the board is
intriguing, and I'm impressed by the cleverness of fiting the board into
100 squares (for the 100 square contest). 
I, too, have a question on the knight's move, however, prompted by my
attempt at an answer to Jeremy's question. I figured this way:
 - the central squares are not 'really' on board B, they are 'really'
on boards A, B, and C, most likely simultaneously but apparently on any
level at will.
 - for the 'dabbabah' move to happen, the knight must move 1 'up' from
B to A on the central square on which it starts, then it 'turns 90' and
moves 2 across board A to the side, ending between the 2 moves made as if
the knight started on board A, move 2 to the side, then turned 90 and
moved 1 along the side. Or start the other way and do the same thing on
C.
However, if that's correct, then the knight can be considered to be on
board C to start, move C to B to A on that same central square for the 2
square leg of its move, then turn 90 and move 1 square off the original
central square to end. And that would add 4 squares to the knight's move
in the diagram, the 2 light squares next to the lower left-hand corner of
the boards A and C central holes. So I may not understand this very well.

GO CHESS

Was well into the second mile of my walk, just past the local police and
fire stations, when my comment to Gary about Go being just a ferz and
wazir movement away from chess ran through my head, bringing the following
train of thought. Play a game of Go. As you put your stones down, mark them
with either an 'X' for ferz or a '+' for wazir. A stone gets an X if it
is not connected to any friendly stones when it is placed. It gets a + if
it is connected to one or more friendly stones. Captured pieces lose their
markings. When the Go game is over, the captured stones are used to fill
territory, the Go score is calculated, and the captured stones are removed
from the board. Then the chess game starts. White moves one piece either
along a line to the next intersection, W, or diagonally across a square to

the opposite corner intersection, F. Last person with pieces wins the
chess game, and scores one point per piece left. The total score is
figured as the sum of the two. Still not chess, but getting there. Okay,
no king? Make all the pieces pretenders. The last one left on a side gets
promoted to king, with a king's W+F move. Still not chess? Drop the Go
scoring. Play Go only for chesspiece placement, using all the rules of
placement, capture, and when the game ends; but no score. More pieces?
Allow a friendly piece to move onto and combine with another friendly
piece. The N is a W-then-F mover, for example. Combos of Fs could build
alfils, elephants, and bishops. Combos of Ws are dabbabahs and rooks. You
could even set aside a certain number of moves at the beginning of the
movement portion of the game to be used only for combining moves. You
might even restrict all combining moves to this part of the game. You
could have to make a single king, also. Now, you place your piece atoms
and fight to destroy your opponents atoms in the placement stage, build
your complex pieces in the combo stage, then play chess in the movement
stage. This is Go morphed into chess, but where did it cross the line?

I tried the Logical Followup to the Duke of Rutland's chess preset twice,
and got the standard chess rules and an 8x8 board, with the Logical title
in large black letters. Maybe it's me ;-)

Gary, I'd be very happy to have you and anyone else who wishes playtest
this baby bear. Thanks. Joe

Tony, just saw the Go preset in 'What's new'. Thank you. Joe

Thank you very much for the comment, Mike, and I hope to be able to live up
to the compliment. After I accidentally designed Modern Shatranj, I got
interested in short-range and jumping pieces, and eventually realized I
had a series of games that could feature pretty much nothing but
short-range jumpers. And that seemed unusual enough to be worth pursuit.
Great Shatranj was the 1st, with no (rooks optional) piece moving over 2
squares, but some 'new' combo pieces; then Grand Shatranj, featuring
2-step pieces moving up to 4 squares, and 1 more 'new' combo piece (the
Squire/Jumping General/Mammoth). Finally, I found the idea of bent riders
irresistable, and decided to make a game with almost super-powered short
range pieces. The zigzag general comes close, and it may actually be a new
piece. All the 2-step pieces would be quite comfortable on larger boards,
also. 
I plan to continue exploring short and medium range pieces for a while.
I'm looking at some 3-square movers and contemplating what might go 5 or
6 squares. There's gotta be some opportunities for genuine new pieces
there.

Generally tremendous graphics: clean, clear and simple. Is it possible to
offer pieces for inclusion, or make requests? I'm using some 'new'
graphics for shatranj variants, and will soon need to make more. These
pieces are or will be adaptations of your existing graphics. In some
cases, I'd like to replace an existing piece with a more themed graphic.
For example, in a shatranj-like game, I'd replace the squirrel with a new
piece consisting of the 'High Priestess' piece fronting a warmachine.
This will be a visual combination of knight, alfil, and dabbabah, whose
moves comprise the squirrel movement; and this doesn't put a squirrel on
the battlefield with elephants and horses and war machines.
Thank you for the great graphics and for making them so freely available.
When people start complaining that your graphics should be used more, you
are definitely doing something right.

I'd feel odd being the 1st to rate this game, as I'm mentioned as an
inspiration, but, from reading through it, I'd say this is another
excellent Gary Gifford game that examines the opening by giving a unique
way to set up some pieces. I'd say this do-it-yourself-setup game is more
subtle than Shatranj of Troy (another excellent game) except that he uses a
cannon to fire the pieces onto the board. Many games use drops to vary the
setup. Gary may be exposing this technique as deus ex machina. Pieces
don't just fall from the sky in Gary's games; they are maneuvered to the
spot where they land by the laws of chess as applied in the game. 
I quite enjoy our discussions about games and their nature; both of us get
ideas that turn up in games. I like that Gary says there's no connection
between chess and go*, then designs exquisite chess games that feature the
placement of pieces. Of course, he goes beyond go, which does feature
pieces falling out of the sky; so we can continue the dialogue and the
disagreements. There's more games in this conversation. Enjoy.
***********************************************************************
*Edit: in later discussions, we clarified our positions, and I need to 
clarify them here. Gary says there are plenty of connections between chess
and go; but he does not see them as variants of each other. I have no
problem seeing them that way. Gary tends to see games as sort of quantized,
they come in discrete, different games. I can agree with that idea, but I 
find it more productive to view all games as a continuum, as variants of 
one another. I will say he has put up the first game from this discussion, 
so he's proved his ideas work. I'm still working on mine - currently 
playing mini-go by placing stones that will become either wazirs or ferzes.
Enjoy! Joe

A very beautiful set of graphics, close in spirit to ERB's treatment, but
how does anybody concentrate on the game? :-) 
Is there any way you could draw the Jetan Sarang board to match the
pieces, or would that take away from the game, or the ability to play the
game, too much?

A very interesting piece, but I'm not sure of its valuation at 4, exactly
midway between rook and knight. I admit it's a crippled chancellor, but
is it  reduced that much? I would suspect it's more powerful than a
guard, say, which is also valued at 4. And while the knight component is a
weaker piece, I'm not sure the elk should be valued at less than a rook.
I'd guess it in the 5-7 range. I'd think a player's tendency would be
to use the knight move to post the piece in an advantageous position for
the rook and let it passively exert power for a while. And I'd be
inclined to move it like a dabbabah, staying on black squares as much as
possible to get the greater power; just using the knight move to leap over
pieces to get in and out. Admittedly you've made the elk's knight
component colorbound - no elknight can attack white squares - but the rook
component can attack any square on the board. Can't see how it's not in
the neighborhood of 6. But then, I'm far from an expert :-) and have been
wrong before. And speaking of being wrong, would it be wrong for me to
suggest considering making a few themed pieces and creating a game around
them? You're very creative with pieces, but replacing 1 FIDE piece with
your new piece and playing from there is kind of just training you in
using the new piece. You are showcasing pieces rather than creating a
whole new game. Replace the knights with elks instead of the rooks -
another new game, with a little more power. Since the knight component is
colorbound, replace the bishops with elks and get a different game still.
This soon becomes unsatisfying; there are a zillion pieces out there which
can somehow fit, but it becomes a slightly different FIDE game rather than
a truly unique variant. Hey, don't sell your pieces short. Give them a
standout game to be in. 
Enjoy.

Thanks, James, for welcoming me to the human race. It means a lot to me; I
was a postal supervisor, and retired as an EAS17. You may be the first
person in decades to consider me human. I really appreciate this. ;-)
Please, don't tell the cat and confuse him! My wife is an animal lover
and I wouldn't want to upset her. And I'm allergic to cats anyway, so I
could probably deal with being hated by yours. So tell him we have 3 dogs
among the menagerie. This way he'll always feel justified. Enjoy. Joe

Far be it from me to shy away from controversy. :-) I have to agree with
George. I am in favor of an open comments system. With all its faults, I
feel it is the best way to encourage people to become more active. [And,
honestly, I think 'good' or 'poor' gives me a lot of info. Not nearly
as much as I like, but who is going to fill out a survey that includes an
essay, for me?] Further, consider the Rules of Chess sections. We got a
lot of apparently one-time messages from fathers and mothers and
schoolkids. All of them know about this site now, and that it's friendly.
It will even listen to a non-member, and various members will respond. I
believe all this encourages repeat traffic, and if we have that, we get
more variants players. [That last sentence sounded so much better than: As
an aging hippie, that's how I want my world to be, open and encouraging.
But that's not a bad reason either.]
There should be things we can do to alleviate the problem without shutting
the doors. Maybe editors could have an automatic pass or a fast lane for
game comments that only consist of a rating. Maybe we could weight members
ratings. Let 'bare' game ratings directly on; and weight members to
non-members 5:1 to 100:1, depending on how little weight you wish to give
'outsiders'. 
Finally, making it 'Members Only' also eliminates all the posts from
outsiders who leave thoughtful comments on occasion. That would have the
effect of driving people away. I want more people to see and play these
games. Maybe someday, I'll find a face-to-face opponent! [Okay, that's a
selfish reason, but I don't think it's a bad reason for all that.]
I understand the reasons and frustrations, and in some ways I like some of
the ideas - maybe members should have to leave at least 5 words. But I
don't want to see the pool of players start drying up. Don't cut off the
supply. Channel it if you must, but keep this Comments system open, please.

My son does a lot of the computer work for me, and when I asked him to help
with more new pieces, he said he might as well make every crazy piece he
could think of, figuring I'd use them sooner or later. He suggested
making a 'Ferris Wheel' piece. Different [or maybe the same] pieces
could be in each 'seat' of the Ferris wheel, and , each time the wheel
moves, a different piece would rotate to the 'top'. The Ferris wheel
would move as that piece next turn. Number of 'seats' in the wheels
would range from maybe 2 to 5. Players might start with a predetermined
set of wheels, or they could each get a kit with empty wheels and a set of
pieces to fill them. 
This carries the general concept of the elk piece another step.
Interestingly, the game Walter Labetti has just brought to our attention,
'chess to the second power', is another version of Elk chess, in which
every piece is doubled and the 2nd piece is hidden until the first is
captured. Of course, his is patented, unlike ours. Hmmm...
James, no matter who designs the pieces and rules, you will undoubtedly be
co-opted to do the board and piece icons for postal chess. :-) Figured I'd
warn you ahead of time. [Probably not much of a surprise, though.] But I'm
sure you'd make awesome little blue and brown pieces. The board needs
buildings that will be important game features, too. Clearly, some kind of
terrain is required to fight over. 
After all, it's all about pickups and deliveries and mayhem over
specified physical areas.

Hey, Greg. The pieces used are all part of a 26 piece set I submitted to go
along with the 5 presets I've posted [so far] for 'Two Large Shatranj
Variants', 'Grand Shatranj Alfaerie'. The FIDE pieces are there,
represented by their customary letters, and some of the ancient chess
pieces, like the Ferz and Wazir, are in the set, represented by their
customary letters. The 'D' piece actually is a Dabbabah, but I don't
use it; instead the piece used is a D+W, which makes it a lot more
flexible. Anyway, all the other letters got used up by other pieces, and
the last piece and the last letter were the D+W and 'Y'. [As it's the
slowest and least 'forward' of all the pieces and I think of it as
looking like a sort of large robot lawnmower trundling along,  privately I
call it the 'Yardboy'. ;-) ] The 'extra' pieces are there to allow
people to easily change the preset so they can try out different pieces.
The series of games from Modern Shatranj through Atlantean Barroom were
put together to look at the effects of changing piece powers, and to be
able to do it in a systematic way.
Hope that helps. [Hope that makes sense.] Joe

Hi, James. Been away for several days or I would have answered sooner. I'd
be happy to take a stab [so to speak] at the pieces. I see short, medium
and long range pieces in the game, with some pieces restricted to small to
medium areas of the board. Clerks in buildings are like guards in XiangQi,
but carriers and drivers may be 'restricted' to much larger areas of the
board. I'd think the board would need buildings; possibly streets,
possibly just colored lines representing 'routes'; certainly pick-up and
delivery 'points'; maybe 'hazards', like bars or speed traps. We should
probably continue the actual work by email, just posting good results, like
some of our subjects. Now, is there anyone else who would actually do
anything? 
Send me a postcard, drop me a line, stating point of view...

This seems to be making everybody who wants a tighter and more informative
rating system happy, but it may take a while for the games to actually
make it to the 'rated' stage, as it requires 5 individual ratings. 
Next, how do I sign up? As far as I'm concerned, every game I post I want
rated, so is there an automatic sign-up? I've currently got 4 public
presets, 2 of them with a rook option. How do I get them put into the
rating pool? And how do the 2 presets with the optional rook get rated?
Does someone have to play all [preset] versions of a game to rate it? And
any other games I get posted? Can they go in automatically?
I guess that's enough questions for now. Thanks. I'm interested in
seeing how this works out. I hope it does well.