Comments by FergusDuniho

In the Kibbitizing section of an ongoing Alice Chess game, I entered a
question about an ambiguity in the rules. If you have any expertise on
Alice Chess, please look at my question, which concerns the specific
position in that game, and help me resolve the ambiguity I'm concerned
about. The game can be found here:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game=Alice+Chess&log=quux-cvgameroom-2004-136-987

First, let me mention that the ambiguity I wondered about is now resolved.

Turning to Larry's puzzlement over the logic behind Parton's rules, I
think the logic lies in what makes for best gameplay. There are two
extremes that each seem more consistent than Parton's choice. One extreme
is to count check only on the completion of a move, and the other is to
never allow any move that leaves a King in check before the transfer of a
piece to the other board. In contrast to these two internally-consistent
options, Parton chose to count check only when a move puts a King in check
before the transfer is made, and to not count check when the King is
already in check and the pre-transfer move does not eliminate the check. I
think Parton made the right choice, and here's why I agree with it. The
first option I described, of counting check only when a move is completed,
would make it too easy for a King to escape check. The second option, of
always counting check before the transfer, would make it too difficult to
escape check. In fact, it would remove all possibility of blocking a
check. Any move that blocked a check before the transer was complete would
fail to actually block the check, because it would be transferred to the
other board, where it no longer blocked the check. To make it neither too
hard nor too easy to escape check, the right choice is to not allow any
move that puts one's own previously unchecked King into check, while
allowing moves that merely postpone the elimination of a pre-existing
check until the end of the full move.

My comments are about the page, not the game itself. First, I'm skeptical
of the hype in the introduction. If someone is a mediocre Chess player who
finds Chess boring, and let me note that that does not describe myself, why
would he have more fun with a variant that is more than twice as large and
introduces several new pieces? For one thing, I expect such a player would
be even more mediocre at this game, because it would be even more
difficult. Also, since it is larger, games would draw on longer, and a
mediocre player who already finds Chess boring might very likely find a
longer game even more boring.

Second, the numbers in the piece descriptions serve no useful purpose. At
first, I thought the numbers preceding each description had something to
do with how the piece moves, but I later figured out that these numbers
indicate how many pieces there are of each type. This information is
already given in the setup, and including it in this cryptic manner in the
piece descriptions just makes the piece descriptions more confusing. It
would be best to delete these numbers from the piece descriptions.

Third, piece descriptions are often too brief. When a piece can't leap,
say so in the description for the piece. Don't just imply it by
mentioning the ability to leap only for pieces that can. Also, it's
confusing to mention that some pieces move the same as others without in
the same place explaining why there is any reason to distinguish between
them. Apparently, some are royal and some are not, but even the unroyal
ones are listed under royalty in the piece descriptions. All in all, the
piece descriptions will be easier to follow if they include some
information that will also be included with the rules. When describing a
game to humans, as opposed to machines, it helps to build in some
redundancy. When a piece description raises questions, answer them right
away instead of leaving it to the reader to infer the answers only after
gaining a total understanding of the game.

Fourth, I think more suitable piece images could be chosen for some
pieces. Some of the piece images used were intended for specific sorts of
compound pieces. The speed line mane on the Knight image used for the
Imperial Prince and Imperial Princess pieces was intended to represent
Nightrider powers. The Princess has been represented by an Amazon piece,
the Prince by what is known in fairy chess as a Princess. It might be best
to draw new images for the new pieces, perhaps basing them on the pieces
Spratt actually designed for this game.

Many people who don't know Japanese have been using Game Courier to play
Shogi online against other people. Besides some Japanese sets, Game
Courier allows that option of a symbolic set that doesn't require any
ability to recognize Japanese characters. Here is the link for Game
Courier's Shogi preset:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/presets/shogi.html

But be sure to visit the main Game Courier page before you get started:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/

For programs that will play Shogi, go here:

http://www.shogi.net/shogi-soft-eqp.html

Michael Howe has quit the tournament. The most straightforward way of
proceeding would be to declare him the loser in all his remaining games
without anyone actually playing any of them. It seems that this option may
give an unfair advantage to anyone who hasn't played him yet, though,
since he has won only one game, this would materially affect the score of
only one player.

A second option would be to not count any of his games toward scoring.
This would put everyone on a level playing field against each other. It
would also set a precedent of doing the same for anyone else who quits. It
may seem innocuous right now, given that doing it right now would make a
material difference for only one player, but if someone else quit after
playing more games, it might not seem like such a fair thing to do.

I think that some of the unfairness in the first option may be mitigated
by the following consideration. It gives people who haven't yet played
against Michael Howe the option of playing the game they were scheduled to
play with him against someone else who has already won the game in this
tournament. Although someone who has beaten him at a game will have to
play and win one more game to score just as well as someone who hasn't
played against him, someone who has beaten him has better odds of being
the better player for the particular game he has beaten him at.

Whichever option we go with, there is also the possibility of reassigning
some games before we continue. This may be desirable for those who were
assigned to play Michael Howe for one of their top choices. If you
haven't played Michael Howe yet, and you're interested in a reassignment
of your remaining games, please contact me with the change you would like
made.

Flippable pieces won't be sufficient for playing Mortal Shogi, because
they won't be enough to cover all possible combinations of pieces that
could exist in the game. Except for some uninvented possibilities, any set
for Mortal Shogi would require multiple pieces. At best, using flippable
pieces would just reduce the total number of pieces that need to be on
hand. 

Not counting Pawns that promote and then demote, one may have up to 7
Knights. For example, (BQ -> WR -> BB -> WN) + 2 * (WR -> BB -> WN) + 2 *
(BB -> WN) + 2 * WN. The other pieces could eventually demote to Black
Knights but not White Knights. Four Chess sets would cover this. The
number needed of other pieces would be less and so would be covered by the
four sets. The number of possible Pawns would be 7+8=15, which would also
be covered. Since each side could have a different 7 Knights, flippable
pieces would not seem to reduce how many extra pieces are needed on hand.
Including the possiblity that all one's Pawns will promote into Knights,
a player could have up to 15 Knights, which can be covered by eight sets.
So, eight sets, not the mere three I said before, is what it takes to
cover all possibilities, and flippable pieces won't really help. Unless
you're rich, it is probably best to go buy eight small plastic sets from
a dollar store.

Okay, now for the uninvented possibilities. I look forward to pieces made
out of nanobots that will be able to take on any shape programmed into
them. A less technically advanced possibility would be disk or wedge
shaped pieces with LCD displays that change at the flick of a button and
can be programmed for different games. Something between these two
possibilities would be flat disks that project programmably changeable
holograms, assuming that it would be safe to touch the LASER light coming
out of them. If need be, they could have some kind of elongated glass dome
that contains the hologram and also makes the tactile sensation of picking
up the pieces more like picking up regular pieces.

The third paragraph in my last comment describes an application of the
provision I included in the first paragraph under 'Pairings', which
reads 'If any two players both win the same game against other opponents,
and they have not played each other yet, they may choose to play that game
together instead of what they were previously scheduled to play.'

Since I have decided to go with the first option, anyone who has not yet
played against Michael Howe is considered to have won his game against him
without playing it.

I have just finished assigning all the games for the second round of the
tournament. Because some people are playing only three games this round,
not everyone is moving first exactly twice and second exactly twice. Here
is how I determined who would go first in each game. First, I arranged it
so that whoever had won fewer games would go first. I then applied the
following rule: No one could move first in more than two games, and no one
could move second in more than two games. This involved switching the order
of some opponents in a way that worked out consistently for everyone. As
much as possible, any discrepencies will be made up in the last round, so
that each player moves first and second in an equal number of games.

I got preferences for Kamikaze Mortal Shogi graphics from one player for
each scheduled game. My opponent shared my own preferences, but for the
other three games, only one player apiece gave preferences. So those are
the ones I went with.

All games but Maxima are being played with presets that enforce the rules.
It is fitting that Antoine is playing the only game of Takeover Chess in
this round, since he wrote the code for enforcing the rules of this game.
If there are any bugs in the Takeover Chess preset, it will normally be
his responsibility to fix them, not mine. But it would be best to contact
both of us about any bugs in that preset, since a given bug might be in
Game Courier's code instead of in Antoine's.