Comments by FergusDuniho

For the definition of clique, follow this link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clique

Anyway, what you're telling me is that the words nerd and geek have no
objective meaning, and certain people are simply using these words to make
fun of other people. In that case, no one who plays Chess is truly a nerd
or a geek in any important objective sense. They are just meaningless
names used by some people to bully others into being more like them. What
matters most is that you remain true to yourself. If you enjoy Chess,
continue to play it and don't worry what others will label you for it.
The truth about many kids is that they are just looking for any excuse to
pick on other kids. If some kid doesn't play Chess, he might choose to
pick on you for playing Chess. But if you didn't play Chess, he might
choose to pick on you for something else. The main thing you can expect
growing up is that kids pick on kids. Whether or not you play Chess has no
bearing on this fact. So there is no reason to give in.

Chess is not a bad thing at all. It is great for helping you improve your
reasoning skills. When you're good at Chess, it is a legitimate source of
pride. And using your mind in the way that Chess requires actually helps
protect you from depression. When some kid doesn't appreciate Chess and
chooses to make fun of others for playing it, it's a sign of insecurity,
not a sign that he is hip or cool and knows something that you don't. On
the contrary, if you enjoy and play Chess, you know something that he
doesn't.

I disagree very much with Antoine's comments on the Gold and Silver
Generals from Shogi. These are not strange pieces that appeared out of the
blue. They are just modified versions of the Wazir and Ferz. Each has been
modified to move in any forward direction in addition to the regular moves
of the Wazir or Ferz. The Gold General is a Wazir that can also move
diagonally forward, and a Silver General is a Ferz that can also move
vertically forward. These pieces are preferable to the Wazir or Ferz,
because they are better suited for attacking the enemy King. In the case
of the Silver General, its additional vertical movement gives it the
ability to reach any space on the board.

Since someone seems to have taken this message seriously, let me point out
that Sue D. Nym is obviously a pseudonym, and this message was posted on
April Fools Day in the time-honored tradition of reporting fake news
stories on April Fools Day.

As an experiment, I made a preset for a version of Cavalier Chess with an
extra Queen. I doubt it is an improvement. But we shall see. Paladins
begin on the same color squares, but that's not the problem it would be
for Bishops, since Paladins change color with Knight leaps. Here is a link
to the preset:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game%3DBigamous+Cavalier+Chess%26settings%3DMotif

In Bigamous Cavalier Chess, I did not use a 9x9 board, because the
Nightriders would be attacking the back rank, and the solutions for fixing
this caused problems of their own. If I stopped this by moving the
Cavaliers up one rank, both sets of Cavaliers could immediately move to
the 5th rank. In the initial position, a Cavalier could move forward only
to the 5th rank. Thus, the first Cavalier to move forward would be moving
to a space where it could be immediately captured by an enemy Cavalier.
This could result in a quick exchange of Cavaliers, which would undermine
the reason I chose Cavaliers over Knights in the first place. I chose
Cavaliers (aka Chinese Chess Knights) for their ability to block each
other, sort of like Pawns can block each other. To make this more feasible
in the opening, I needed at least four empty ranks between the Cavaliers.
If Cavaliers started on their player's 3rd ranks to prevent Nightriders
from reaching the back rank on a 9x9 board, they would have only three
empty ranks between them. Compromises that put some Cavaliers on the 2nd
rank and some of the 3rd did not work out well either. Using a 9x10 board
eliminated all the problems caused by a 9x9 board without introducing any
new problems.

I did not include an Amazon for the same reason I never included one in
Cavalier Chess. This piece to too powerful, resulting in a less
interesting game. I don't like to include any piece that is so powerful,
it can force checkmate on its own. It makes the other pieces superfluous.
I find a Chess variant more interesting when it involves the strategic
marshalling of a variety of forces, and I don't like games where the main
strategy is to get one super piece into a position where it can proceed to
force checkmate. That's why I hate Frank Maus's Cavalry Chess.

I don't like to rag on a game invented by someone who just praised one of
mine, but in the interests of promoting good game design, I'll speak up
anyway.

This game reminds me of Frankenstein's monster, which was just pieced
together from the body parts of various corpses. I doubt that what makes
Chess, Xiang Qi, and Shogi such good games can be retained by combining
them in this way. Each game is a carefully constructed whole. If you just
rip pieces from each game and combine them in the manner that you have, I
don't expect that the new game will retain the appeal of any of the
original games. If you want to marry the best qualities of each game
together, it would be best to find a way that is more seamless.

However, that may be difficult, or even impossible. Combining all the best
qualities of each game would be sort of like combining all the best
qualities of a beautiful blonde, a beautiful brunette, and a beautiful
redhead into one woman. While the game may be interesting to play, it
lacks the aesthetic appeal that I find in games whose elements are woven
together more seamlessly.

One significant difference between Shogi and Chess is that the Bishop in
Shogi can change color, so to speak, by being captured and then dropped.
It is also possible in Shogi for a player to possess both Bishops. So, the
drop rules of Shogi are making up for the imbalance created by each side
beginning with only one Bishop. If Shogi were played without drops, it
would be a significantly less balanced game than it is with drops.

Gary,

If you're really up to the challenge of combining images of a beautiful
blonde, redhead, and brunette, let me give you the names of three
beautiful actresses, images of whom can be found various places on the
web, and see what you can do. For the blonde, I pick Heather Graham. For
the redhead, I pick Milla Jovovich, as she appeared in the movie The Fifth
Element. And for the brunette, I pick Patricia Ja Lee, who played the Pink
Power Ranger in Power Rangers in Space. (I'm not really a fan of Power
Rangers, but her beauty was so great it gave me all the reason I needed to
watch Power Rangers in Space. You can probably thank her beauty for the
eventual existence of Sentai Chess, Fusion Chess, and several games I
based on Fusion Chess.)

Your comments about the Alfil and Dabbabah remind me of the Dragon in
British Chess. This piece is a compound Alfilrider and Dabbabahrider. So,
like the Dabbabah, it is limited to only one quarter of the board. Each
player gets two Dragons, which are enough to cover only half the board,
and the four initial Dragons in the game each cover a different quarter of
the board. The only way for two Dragons to cover the same area would be
through Pawn promotion to a Dragon. But since the only way a Pawn may
promote to a Dragon is if one has been captured, no player will ever have
more than two Dragons.

Despite the fact that a player will never be able to cover the whole board
with his Dragons, I don't think the game suffers from giving each player
only two Dragons instead of four. The Dragon is useful mainly in support
of other pieces. Also, given that a player's Dragons cannot capture each
other, there is a greater potential for uneven piece exchanges, which may
help to make the game more interesting.