Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Then I'll just delete it. We don't need different versions of a rules page that differ only in the graphics used.
@fergus, this page is just a copy of https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/chess-on-an-infinite-plane with different graphics. (Although now I see that that page has some issues with characters as well.)
This page is currently hidden. The character set used by the text appears to be something other than UTF-8, and it needs to be re-entered as UTF-8 text.
Indeed, for afficionados of cubism this is a very nice design. Personally I would not want to use it for playing, however. And the piece shapes are somewhat reminiscent of the move, in some cases.
The mnemonic piece set designed for the large Shogi variants is based on a similar idea. There the problem is more easily handled, however, because Shogi pieces tend to move in more restricted ways than pieces in western variants; virtually all pieces only have Queen moves, and it is just the range in every direction that varies. So al the piece shapes have to do is encode 8 ranges. (Ad only ranges 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 and infinite occur.)
I don't consider the representation as an intrinsic part of the game, however. Players should just use the representation that feels best for them.
I would tend to agree that this particular game may not be the perfect showcase for this image set. Among other reasons, the game and the graphical set represent different periods in the development of variant chess games. The graphics were released in 1999, and this game was released last year (about a 19 year difference).
But there is a lot that can be said as far as aesthtics are concerned in linking a game to a particular image set. First, I think that Fergus Duniho's set of abstract chess graphics (see link below) is a very innovative and awesome design. The graphics are minimalistic, and the icons often give some indication of how a piece moves. It is somewhat "cubist" which pays homage to some of civilization's great art and artists, Pablo Picasso included. I am not familiar with any other chess graphics that are similar to Fergus's set, so I think his creation entered new ground as an artistic creation in the realm of board games.
Another comment is that to my knowledge, this set of graphics have not been used for any new games for several years (other than this game). The last comment on the page for these graphics was in the year 2011, about seven years ago. A new application of this set can be viewed as a "revival" or "allusion" to a style that has been absent in recent years.
Lastly, there can be some discussion about the "playability" of using this set of graphics. Although quite simple in appearance, it differs significantly from chess's classical piece design. The king and queen for example don't look anything like what most people are used to. I really like the designs a lot, but some can argue that they make playing a game more difficult. If not familiar with the design, recognizing the different pieces can have some affect on calculating chess moves. With this in mind, why would anyone use it? Well, just as in classical chess, many, many, shapes and designs have been created over the years - some beautiful, some ugly, some simple, and others garish. But some people just love to explore the different aesthetic elements of the game!
Link to Abstract Chess Pieces by Fergus Duniho:
Abstract Chess Pieces by Fergus DunihoIndeed, some people are interested in it for mathematical reasons. But I don't expect anyone to be interested in it as the perfect showcase for the aesthetics of piece-image sets. That was my point.
Some websites and forums use links to connect readers from one web page to another - not everything is discovered by a prime search alone. As for the topic of infinite chess there is interest in it - both as a mathematical model for game theory and also for game-playing. You can find links to both here:
Chess on an Infinite Plane
YouTube - infinite chess
It seems to me that aestethics of a certain set of piece images would be best addressed on pages about that particular image set. No one would think "Hey, I wonder how these pieces would look on a large board. So let me go the the article on Chess on an Infinite Plane, because it will surely be shown there!". More likely they would not even know what Chess on an Infinite Plane is, and remain blissfully unaware of it for the rest of their life...
It has to do with the aesthetics of the game. To some people (but not all) the aesthetics of a game is an important element. For me, I enjoy games from both a mathematical context, but I also think style and appearance are important too.
Why do you think it would be of any interest to 'show that abstract piece graphics can be used for large-format games'? Wouldn't even an idiot understand that any piece graphics can be used for any game?
Ok, thanks Greg. Let me think about it for a few days before it's deleted. I spent a lot of time learning about Fergus's abstract piece set, and was happy with the result. (The concept of "infinity" is somewhat abstract, and I felt that abstract graphics suited it perfectly).
What I might do, if it fits somewhere, is see if I can show this as an example of how the abstract piece graphics can be used for large-format games. But I have to get familiar with those threads again to see where it would best be placed. Either in the comments for the game's primary page, or the comments for the abstract piece set.
In the meantime thanks for your reply.
There is already a page for this game. We don't have multiple pages for the same game, that would be chaos.
If you like these graphics, you could add them to the existing page, although it would look more cluttered. I can archive or delete this page if you like.
Do entries such as this stay hidden forever, or is there some mechanism to either place them in archive, or to release them? The championship game for this variant is currently in progress (see link below) although the competitors are using classical chess icons rather than Fergus's icons.
I think Fergus's icons are rather cool and would love to see this version made publicly available.
Chess on an Infinite Plane - Championship gameThanks Fergus. I replied on the page for Trappist-1. Will you release that page so it can be viewed publicly? If anyone else is interested it will let them see about the development of Chess on an Infinite Plane (if there's any revisions), and also Trappist-1. Both games are already being played.
Thanks so much! :)
I made some comments on your Trappist-1 page that also apply to this game.
Thank Fergus,
I changed the title and now it looks better and more simple. The game introduction still mentions that it uses your piece shapes. I like the abstract icons a lot, and for this game where it's necessary to display a large board area, it's easy to identify the pieces even when you "zoom out".
I also have another game which is played on an infinite board called "Trappist-1". It also uses your piece icons, including one of the shapes for the huygens (a piece which jumps prime numbers of squares).
The game is pending review, and I hope it's posted on this site soon.
Regards :)
It's fine to use my graphic images, but there is no need to mention the piece set used in the title. This is not an essential part of the game, and the title only needs to include the game's name.
That video is part of a math series, so she's not so interested in the gameplay. In particular, the specific new rules to force a finite drawless game aren't important. After all, there's little hope to determine who has the winning strategy from the usual starting position.
That was just posted yesterday? I watched it and read some of the comments. I'll have to read everything again to understand it better. The video makes the assumption that chess is never a draw but they didn't explain how the rules are changed to enforce this. One comment someone added says for example if it is your turn and you have no legal moves, you lose. This is normally a stalemate including in "Chess on an Infinite Plane".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-I6u-AxMg
The above link is also about infinite chess, not yours, vickalan but anyway!white "J1" plays against black "J1". White wins with a checkmate by chancellor, rook, and hawk (for example).
white "J1" plays against black "J1". Neither side still has an advantage, so:
white "J2" plays against black "J2". Black wins with checkmate by a hawk and two promoted pawns (for example).
Hello, vickalan,
I'm glad you brought this topic (infinite boards) on this website again. Infinity is something I fancy and there is reason to include it one way or the other in my own games. Anyway this is a difficult concept to work with. I haven't properly understood the game but it seems to me that 2 experienced players will still do a a lot of draws. Also, why do the hawks start so much behind? Is there some justification related to the bishop move? The game doesn't propose any innovative ideas besides of the infinite board, as the fairy pieces here are fairly well-known. There is an exception to that I do like a lot - the idea of the huygens. This piece is interesting lifting my first rating I post on this website to good.
Good luck, vickalan
24 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
It took inspiration from one of the sets available in a Chess program I had on my Amiga. That set was probably inspired by some of the physical sets I have pinned pictures of in my Chess Sets board on Pinterest. What makes mine different is that it is 2D instead of 3D. In that respect, it is probably more squarish than cubist.