[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Hey, Joe (where you goin' wit' dat guninyourhand? Da-dum-da-dum-dum..nyuk-nyuk!) Sounds like it's gonna need a pretty big board, with all those details. I like it well enough to fiddle with it a bit, maybe it'll go somewhere. Email me, and we'll show it off if we get somewhere, howzat?
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...
Postal Chess? Piece icons, no problemo; board, no problemo. Drawing I can do, presets I can't. I'd advance on my end of it if someone'll volunteer the other parts so it could be posted and played. We're working on how to convert (many) piece icons to CVP format to fill out some of the collections that players like but that are missing a lot of the funner pieces. Like the Pepperoni for Pizza Chess that we all know and love so well, and the Pied-bill Snaihu for--uh, what was that for again, Jeremy? *cackle!*
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.
Well, now I'm starting to wonder who it is who really should be confined. Hey, maybe we could put some cops into the game; they could move any one if solo, any two if in pairs, any three if three adjacent--strength in numbers. Do some ride-alongs (maybe he'll let us shoot his gun at something!); Cop could be the one who finally takes out WELOJDGWAAK--the others just stop him. It's got potential. I still like the Elk loose in the mailroom; Franker can aim the congressional mail at 'im an' let 'er rip, yee-haw! So who's gonna do the preset for it? I'll play it.....
How about we incorporate the spirit of the elk piece, and make our pieces double-sided? One side: sane; the other: normal working conditions - okay, no, but you could flip a piece to 'activate' it as a move. And if all pieces had a sane and an insane side, you could get some good effects. Maybe a shop steward could change the state of another piece. The 204B thing is fair - the stress of having a real supervisor from another office watching is enough to detonate many a 204B. About here, I realized that most of these 'pieces' should be confined. Just to keep this short, a final thought: Should the sides be Blue and Brown?
One or two postal pieces could actually strew Mail around the field. Causing the others to have to collect them in order to move. This could be the job of the Franker. As a turn it places Mail on each of its adjacent vacant cells. Causing it to be immobilized. All pieces might be able to collect the Mail, and there might be a limited number of pieces of Mail. Since in real life there is no end to the Mail, it really should not be considered as a goal. Maybe we do need a new thread.
Maybe we oughtta change the thread-name, or include an Elk in the piece set, as though the Post Office is in Colorado, maybe. Another suggested piece, duh: the MAIL. Only travels if moved with another USPS piece. Win condition: Get the MAIL to the other guy's home row? (So don't LOSE the MAIL!!) Another suggested piece: Postal Assistant (Confined, filler, doesn't move unless shoved out of the way by Inspector, Supervisor or 204B.)
Hi, Joe: A good size for Postal Chess might be 12 x 12, with a limit of maybe 15 different pieces, some of which are unique and some symmetrically placed. So far we have 12 named pieces, and I think to maintain the character metaphors, they should be divided into Travelers (long-sliders) and Confined (those who work in the Mailroom/Station/Annex.); the Travelers would be free to go anywhere on the board, and the Confined would be kept to the, say, 5 home rows. So how 'bout this for a piece set: Inspector: Travels as Q Supervisor: Confined, any 3, square or diagonal, in any combination Registry Clk: Confined, any up to 3 in a straight line, sq. or diag. WELOJDGWAAK: Travels any 2; sequential captures if possible; must be bracketed by at least 2 pieces to capture; defending side may move as many pieces as GWAAK captured on his rampage to attempt to confine him, once per rampage. Letter Carrier (walker): Travels any 1 space in any direction Franker: Confined, detonates if Supervisor gets within his 3 x 3, and disappears 204B: Confined, detonates if Supervisor gets within his 3 x 3, taking out 8 surrounding cells with him On-Break Clerk: moves any 1 in any direction, but doesn't move unless Supervisor is within his 3 x 3 Route Inspector: Travels as Rook Route Carrier: Travels as Bishop Mean Dog: Travels any 2 LOLIAB: Little-Ol'-Lady-In-A-Buick: Travels any distance at random; player picks up LOLIAB, closes eyes, and plunks her down somewhere on the board. Cannot be captured, but may not function if completely surrounded. Just working suggestions.
James, the Inspector piece should be short-range but unblockable; effectively a Guard-Squirrel combo, say. After all, they're not always around, but when they show, they come out of the walls. (Literally [for non-postal people], there are secret passageways for the inspectors built into post office buildings.) Larry, the WELOJDGWAAK piece could be a customer. You'd probably need a special capturing turn, where multiple capturing pieces could all move at once. Possibly the piece might need to be totally surrounded to be captured. So cornering a 'Gwaak would be a good idea, making it easy to capture. It should be a large variant; I suggest the Registry Clerk (the Keeper of the Keys) as a power piece; some more minor pieces like the On-Break window clerk and the Route Inspector; and finally, the 204B*, possibly the most dangerous piece of all, subject to blowing at any time. My condolences on your experiences with the USPS, by the way. I've been retired 3 years now, and the nightmares are starting to go away. There is hope. And, no, you can't blast the jam out of a machine by running more mail into it. Believe me, it's been tried by experts. I've seen it, and it's not pretty. And then you have to put each bit of remains into its own little plastic 'body bag' which says on its side how the PO is trying to fix this problem. Right! You ever see anybody working on it? * 204B: an acting supervisor; in other words, a clerk or carrier who probably wasn't doing their job anyway, so it doesn't hurt to take them off the workroom floor...
Well, hey, Larry--SHAZAM!! Bullseye! POIFICK! I couldn't have come up with a better move for him myself! (Hey, I've used some of the moves you came up with in the Jeddara game; Tony's not quite up to dealing with Warlord yet, but we'll cross that bridge, too. Someday. I hope and 'speck.) There's another 'Postal' piece, too, called the 'Franker.' He's the guy who runs the automatic franking machine when the congressional mail comes through--5000 pieces of letter-size not-quite-cardstock rocketing through a little ditch in a stainless steel table at nine hundred and seventeen miles an hour, and one corner of one gets folded and hung on the little wheelie-thing and in seven nano-seconds the whole batch is 5000 little greasy paper accordians that you can't throw in the trash where they belong; the lucky recipients of these mangled missives will wonder if it's some kind of joke. The Franker gets to straighten these pontifical pennings out, one by one, after disassembling the hunnertandeightyseven-piece mechanism in order to extricate the last two thousand and twelve, which have become compressed into a block of the most incredibly strong material known to man, separable only by exacto and microscope. I am open to input on precisely what the Franker does when this delightful event occurs. Blow in place, maybe. Go Supervisor hunting sounds likely. Head for the nearest bar. Stack up three or four more 5000-packs and see if you can blow the jam free with Overdrive. I dunno. I'm too close to the problem--y'see, it was part of an earlier, checkered life, in nightmares of which I still awaken, trembling, drenched with sweat, in the wee, still hours.
Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK. Hmmmmmmmm. That's the piece that once it starts capturing, it keeps on capturing. And it takes several pieces to capture it.
Hi, Joe; interesting, my brother's VOMA Greensboro, finishing out 30; didn't want to go management because he likes his soul too much. Kitty says he's allergic to you, too; three dogs! Fer shame.. Dogs have masters, cats have staff. Hey, how 'bout a 'Postal Chess' variant? Lessee, pieces are the Inspector, Supervisor, Letter Carrier, Mailbox Lurker, Mean Dog and Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK.
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
Well, y'know, we can all get hot sometimes about things we care about; welcome to humanity. Shucks, now I'll have to take back all the rotten things I said about you to my cat. That's so sad because it confuses him, and when he gets confused he's hard to deal with; he already thinks I'm a sap. (smilie)
Mats, I must start with an apology. My statement was emotional and rather over-the-top, instead of reasonable. I'm sorry. I should not have posted that statement. I was wrong to do so. And my display of bad manners makes my arguments about your conduct far more difficult to prosecute either successfully or comfortably. Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain where our differences lie. I will copy some of the CV comments: 2006-05-30 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, I followed your suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I don't think the game would work very well. --Mats (and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version) 2006-06-01 Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce None Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe 2006-06-01 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant works anyway. Time will tell. --Mats [end of quotes] Quite a change in attitude in a very short period of time. Another quote: 2006-06-02 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already told. But when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it as a variant. [eoq] If the variant is that trivial and you had already investigated and dismissed it, why include it in your game? Especially without noting its poorness? If it was worth including in the game, it was worth crediting. You are trying to have it both ways. I object to that general attitude. Further, you have changed your page to include references and links to everyone but me - thanks! That was a good laugh. (Seriously, I did laugh; it reminded me so much of work.) That you went back and changed your pages after I made my comments says something about the relative merits of our positions. Here, I must apologize again. That I implied you gave no credit at all was wrong and misleading. This is where I went over the top. You did, when you became aware of their existance, name the games that contained the Squire. I will state here that I do not remember any designers names associated with the games you credited on your Mammoth Chess page when I looked at it a few days ago. Again, I state this is wrong. Cavalier expropriation of ideas and a reluctance to credit either sources or original creators coupled with a dismissive and condescending attitude first made me seriously consider saying something. But, finally, it was your dismissive and condescending statements toward others that prompted me to respond. Telling Alfred Pfeiffer to, in effect, run along and stop bothering you as you no longer have the time to bother with chess was what got me irked enough to write. Mr. Pfeiffer wrote a nice expansion of your initial idea, adding details that clearly could enhance the game. You said: 2006-06-01 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes they will. --Mats [eoq] Now run along home like a nice boy - not. I'm a New Yorker. I know when I've been dissed, and when others have. I do not like to be in this position, but, as it occurred in a public forum, I felt and still feel it must be addressed publicly. In a forum like CV, all we have are our ideas and our willingness to work. Everybody should be credited, no matter how trivial the idea or how invisible the work. That everybody plays in good faith should be a fundamental principle of this site. This is my main position, and I have no hesitation in asking every member of this site to weigh in on this question. This post is already too long. While there is much more I wish to say, I will sum up my 2 main points: I apologize for my improper emotional post, it should not have happened. Give credit where it is due, and it's due if you are aware, or should be, of the existance of a reason to give it. Finally, I will say again that you are an excellent piece designer (although I think you need to work a little on game design); and I'd much rather we played nice together. Joe Joyce
James, you're right. I argued emotionally instead of logically, and created a public display of irritation and bad manners. I hereby apologize to everyone. I should not have done it. I will do my best to avoid such things in the future. Joe
Aw-w, c'mon, guys; de gustibus non disputandum est.
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already told. But when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it as a variant. There is too much touchiness in this forum sometimes. I have not claimed that the Mammoth is my invention. I say on my homepage, and in my zrf:s that '...The Mammoth piece (also called Mastodon) is not entirely new. Under other names it appears as the queen analog in Grand Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj. In EV Greenwood's Renniassance Chess (not misspelt) from 1980, the piece is named Squire.' So these allegations directed against me are false. Other inventors have already acquired the Squire and renamed it, before I did so. Probably they had no idea that the Squire existed. Moreover, the demand that I should have to check up every obscure fairy piece in all kinds of publications, before I appropriate a piece name, is ridiculous. Anyway, I now leave this forum because there is a very strange underlying enmity here. I feel no need to put up with it. --Mats
Alfred, I think we've been dismissed. But that's okay, because I've been thinking. I've come up with a couple new pieces. I'm calling them the NightRunner and the BishopRunner. The NR moves like a knight or a rook, depending on the color of the square the piece is on. There are, of course, two complimentary types. The BR moves like a bishop or a rook, depending on whether the number of squares the piece last moved was even or odd. Again, there are complimentary types. I like these pieces, I think there's a great future for them. I'm going to add them to my Jumping General, a new piece I discovered last year. It slides 1 or jumps 2 in any direction (orthogonally or diagonally). The JG isn't going to be just big, it's going to be mammoth! Now just between you and me, Alfred, I was inspired by your idea, but I don't know whether or not to give you any credit. After all, I expanded on the idea and made it uniquely my own. What's that? Eric Greenwood's Squire is my jumping general, and he used it in Rennaissance Chess over a quarter century ago, and it's still being played? Well, maybe he might get some credit. I put it up to all. What does everybody think? Credit, or no credit?
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes they will. --Mats
Hello Mats, you wrote
Notwithstanding I propose you to introduce both types of the Elk
(of course this needs slightly different graphics to distinguish them):
I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.Your arguments are plausible and the opinion is to accept.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be on different wings.
Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Notwithstanding I propose you to introduce both types of the Elk
(of course this needs slightly different graphics to distinguish them):
- the B/W-Elk: it moves on the black squares as rook, but on the white squares it jumps like a knight
(this is the actual used type); and - the W/B-Elk: it moves on the white squares as rook, and on the black squares it leaps like a knight
(I proposed this type for the white pieces).
With this two types you may build easily different setups (symmetric or not, first move as knight or not).
Did you consider to apply this new method (different move possibilities
depending on the color of the square)
to other combinations of pieces, e.g.
- Elk pawns: move (when not capturing) as pawn or as knight (forward only), capture always diagonal;
- a Rook/Nightrider piece (how to name it?)
Alfred Pfeiffer
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant works anyway. Time will tell. --Mats
Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
thanks Walter Labetti