[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by FergusDuniho
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The second round is almost finished. Only one game remains, and either player could call a draw by invoking the 3-times repetition rule, since the same positions have repeated at least 3 times and are continuing to repeat. So expect the third round to start soon.
Antoine, the rules for PMC begin by saying 'All FIDE Chess rules apply except as follows:'. None of the rules of PMC state any exception to the 3-times repetition rule of Chess. Only one rule of PMC states any exception to any drawing condition of FIDE Chess. It says, 'The game is drawn if fifty consecutive moves have elapsed without a capture or a promotion.' This is just a modification to the 50-moves rule of FIDE Chess to account for promotions. It does not state that these are the only drawing conditions for the game. The 'if' in the rule is just an 'if', not an 'only if'. This rule can be accurately reworded as 'If fifty consecutive moves have elapsed without a capture or a promotion, then the game is drawn.' Therefore, the 3-times repetition rule of FIDE Chess is one of the rules of PMC, and either of you has the right to declare your game a draw.
Recognized Chess Variants. Index page listing the variants we feel are most significant. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for checking out the links. The two bad links were both mistakes on my part. I have now fixed them.
I have some more suggestions for other things CVPAF could be an acronym for: Chess Variant Pages Apocolypse of Fun Chess Variant Pages Approbation File Chess Variant Pages Appreciation Furore
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In the last two rounds, the privilege of moving first was given evenly, so that you would have it as many times as you didn't have it. Since there are a total of 11 games to play for those of us who played Michael Howe, we can't all play equally as many games as the first player as the second. So, in the last round, here is how who moves first will be decided: 1) The player with the lower total score so far will move first. 2) When players have equal scores, whoever has moved first in fewer games will move first. For these purposes, any game automatically won against Michael Howe without actually playing against him will count as a game in which you moved first. 3) If there is still a tie, the other tiebreaking methods will be used in the same order they would be for deciding the winner. Whoever loses the tiebreak would go first. [No ties were left unresolved by the prior rule.] 4) Exceptions will be made to make sure that no one moves first in fewer than five games and in more than seven. An average of five to six would have been enforced, but counting any unplayed game against Michael Howe as a game in which you moved first raises the total number of games in which each remaining person in the contest moved first. With these conditions in mind, here is who will play whom in each game, with the first player listed first: Alice Chess Fergus Duniho vs. Antoine Fourriere Tony Quintanilla vs. Michael Madsen Mark Thompson vs. Thomas McElmurry Anti-King Chess II Carlos Carlos vs. Fergus Duniho Roberto Lavieri vs. Antoine Fourriere Mark Thompson vs. Ben Good Michael Madsen vs. Mike Nelson [exception] Cavalier Chess Carlos Carlos vs. Roberto Lavieri Ben Good vs. Fergus Duniho Mike Nelson vs. Gary Gifford Tony Quintanilla vs. Mark Thompson [exception] Maxima Gary Gifford vs. Roberto Lavieri Ben Good vs. Thomas McElmurry Takeover Chess Thomas McElmurry vs. Carlos Carlos [exception] Michael Madsen vs. Gary Gifford Mike Nelson vs. Tony Quintanilla I think this was the fairest way to decide who goes first in each game, but if Antoine thinks it will be fairer for him to move first in our game of Alice Chess, given that he would be moving first in fewer actual games than anyone else, I'm willing to allow it. This is not because I doubt the fairness of this method, but only because it might appear unfair, and if I defeat Antoine and win the tournament, I don't want anyone to think I did it by manipulating the tournament.
Mike Nelson has it right. I don't understand what reason Roberto suggested I had in mind for alerting Antoine and Carlos about their 3-times repetition and the applicable rule.
Yes, considering that Michael Howe was the first-place winner of the previous multivariant tournament, I gather that he was a formidable opponent and that not playing against him was an appreciable advantage for many people. It was to counteract some of the effects of this advantage that I decided to count any automatically won unplayed game against him as one in which you moved first.
<P>Roberto writes:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Fergus, I have said that it was, perhaps, an additional reason for alerting a drawn condition in the PMC game, but I´m not cathegorical on this, it was only a bad thought expressed with some class of humour, if you can consider it as some class of humour.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Roberto, when I said I didn't understand the motivation you suggested I had, I meant that I didn't understand what you were saying, not that I didn't understand why you said it. I just don't know what motivation you were suggesting I had, because I didn't understand what you wrote.</P>
Carrera's Chess. Large chess variant from 17th century Italy. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]According to Pritchard, the Champion (R+N) goes on the King's side and the Centaur (B+N) goes on the Queen's side. He also mentions that Murray mixes the names. Since this page describes the positions of Champion and Centaur as the reverse of what Pritchard says, and given what he says about Murray mixing the names, it looks like this page gets the setup of the game wrong. It would seem that it is my Capablanca variation, not Aberg's, that has the same setup as Carrera's Chess.
Chancellor. Moves like rook or as knight.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You were right about the dates being switched. I've now fixed it. Thanks.
Aberg variation of Capablanca's Chess. Different setup and castling rules. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since I'm working on updating my Chess,_Large.zrf file today, I was paying more attention to the various games in it, and I started tripping up over Aberg's variation. In this ZRF, which I originally wrote in 1998, I implemented both Aberg's variation, or what I thought was his variation, and a Capablanca variation of my own. When I originally wrote the ZRF, this page did not exist, and I based my ZRF on the description which is now at http://www.chessvariants.org/misc.dir/chessmods.html I've just noticed that this old description has a contradiction in it. The text description places the Chancellor on the Queen's side and the Archbishop on the King's side, but the diagram reverses this. I based the ZRF on the diagram, and my own Capablanca variation just reversed the positions of Chancellor and Archbishop. Since this page agrees with the old text and not with the old diagram, I take it that my variation was actually Aberg's variation. Furthermore, Pritchard's description of Carrera's Chess contradicts the description on this website. Pritchard points out that Murray reversed the names of the Champion and Centaur, and our page on Carrera's Chess was based on John Gollon, who probably got his information from Murray. I trust Pritchard more than Gollon or Murray, and so I take his description of the game as more authoritative. Therefore, it appears that Carrera's Chess, Aberg's Capablanca variation, and my Capablanca variation all have the same setup. It looks like my least original variant ever is even less original than I thought it was. :)
Carrera's Chess. Large chess variant from 17th century Italy. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg, I'm going to abandon my old Capablanca variation, since it is nothing more than the Carrera and Aberg setup with the same rules as Capablanca's Chess. But I am working on a new one, which you might be happy to include in ChessV when it's ready. I was inspired by some other comments you wrote recently to create a game I am calling Grotesque Chess. For the present, I will just leave this name as a riddle to be figured out. I have decided on the setup for the game, but at present, I am still debating over whether to include free castling, as Aberg's does. It seems like a nifty idea, but it will make it much harder for me to implement the rules with Game Courier. I'm going to sleep on it and see what I can come up with tomorrow.
I was thinking of the same thing. It would be easier to program not only for Game Courier but for Zillions too and maybe ChessV as well. I had thought I had seen a new ZRF for Aberg's, and I was hoping to download it and use it to test whether free castling gives White too great an advantage, as some people have claimed it does. But I guess it doesn't exist. I had never programmed free castling into my ZRF for Aberg's, because I didn't know it was part of the game. I was tending toward free castling, because there is already a name for it. Perhaps I shall use a half-enhanced castling and call it flexible castling. It would work like this. The King would move two or more spaces toward the Rook, and the Rook would leap over the King to the immediately adjacent space. By omitting the option of moving one space toward the Rook and moving the Rook to the King's original space, a program doesn't have to distinguish between a King's usual one-space move and a castling move, and it will remain less confusing for players to enter notation into Game Courier. It also helps to avoid making the castling move too powerful. I think one of the complaints against free castling was that it would allow the Rook to go directly to the King file. This may make castling too powerful by increasing the opportunity of using castling to check the enemy King. The flexible castling I'm suggesting won't allow the Rook to move to the King file. Here's another thing I like about flexible castling. It forces the player to make a choice between one thing he wants and another. Is it more important to move the King to a certain space or to move the Rook to a certain space? He sometimes has to give a little to get what he wants. He can't have his cake and eat it too. In contrast, free castling is basically two moves in one. I think it's best to avoid that. So, I think I will use flexible castling in Grotesque Chess. However, I'm now toying with different ideas for the opening setup. I'm going to try out some different setups with a Gothic Chess set and see which I like best.
Grotesque Chess. A variant of Capablanca's Chess with no unprotected Pawns. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke writes:
Fergus Duniho correctly points this assortment of pieces goes back 500 yrs.(Regina Rabiosa's debut), so hardly original.
No, I didn't mention anything earlier than Carrera's Chess, which is just under 400 years old. I don't know what Regina Rabiosa is.
[EDIT: I now realize that Regina Rabiosa is Latin for Mad Queen, one of the original epithets for Modern Chess.]<P>George Duke writes:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The form of castling is used also in Falcon Chess since 1995.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Not quite. I quote from the page on Falcon Chess:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Figure 23 shows that 'free castling' in Falcon Chess permits the king to move to any of the squares between itself and a rook in a castling move.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>In Grotesque Chess, a King may not castle to an adjacent space. It must move at least two spaces in order to castle.</P>
Regarding the names Guard and Equerry, they seemed suitable for this game, because the Guard is placed next to the King, as though it is guarding it, Guard and Equerry feature some of the letters of Grotesque, particularly G and Qu, and Equerry strikes me as a bizarre, if not grotesque, name for a piece.
I perused Pritchard's ECV today, and I did find one game that had a castling rule like Grotesque Chess's. The game is Supercapablanca Chess, a 12x8 version of Capablanaca's Chess. Its castling rule states that a King may move two, three, or four spaces toward the Rook. Its castling rule would be equivalent to that of Grotesque Chess within the context of Grotesque Chess, though as I worded the rule for Grotesque Chess, its rule would not be equivalent to that of Supercapablanca Chess on its longer board, since it would also allow the King to move five spaces toward the Rook. If I needed to, I would have just reworded the rule to match that of Supercapablanca Chess. But I am grateful that you're willing to let anyone 'use this form of modified free castling ... in any variant.' I came to this form of castling mainly from a programming perspective. In Game Courier, I had been distinguishing castling from a King's usual move by noting where the King moves to. But when I thought of implementing unrestricted free castling, this wasn't going to work out. Even more of a problem from a programming perspective was giving the Rook a choice of which space to move to. As I thought about the matter more, I concluded, as you have too, that unrestricted free castling is basically two moves in one, and that makes castling too powerful.
<P>Charles Gilman writes:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
This arrangement of simple pieces opens a whole new debate. RB-N--N-BR
alone protects all but the d and g Pawns. Therefore any arrangement of the
four compound pieces will protect all Pawns as only one lacks the required
diagonal move.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>You're right about that. I put the Knights so close to the center, because I knew I could protect all the Pawns by keeping pairs of diagonal moving pieces together. If I had put Knights in the same positions as Aberg had, not all Pawns would have been protected. I expect my reason for putting the Knights so close to the center blinded me to the fact that I could have then arranged the other pieces at will.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
What are the relative merits of the 12 distinct arrangements (or even just the 6 with a centralised King)?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Yes, I would favor keeping the King centralized. The six distinct arrangements you refer to are actually six sets of mathematically equivalent pairs. These are</P>
<PRE>
RBGNKQNEBR and RBENQKNGBR
RBENKQNGBR and RBENQKNGBR
RBQNKGNEBR and RBENGKNQBR
RBENKGNQBR and RBQNGKNEBR
RBGNKENQBR and RBQNEKNGBR
RBQNKENGBR and RBQNEKNGBR
</PRE>
<P>The Grotesque Chess array is the third one down on the left. First, I favor eliminating each pair member that puts the White Queen on the King's right side. This is just to preserve the usual meanings of King-side and Queen-side. This leaves these:</P>
<PRE>
RBENQKNGBR
RBENQKNGBR
RBQNKGNEBR
RBQNGKNEBR
RBQNEKNGBR
RBQNKENGBR
</PRE>
<P>Again, the Grotesque Chess array is the third one down. One factor to consider is which better balances the power of the pieces on both sides of the King. Since the Queen is more powerful than either Guard or Equerry, it would be one with the Queen on the King's left and Guard and Equerry on the King's right. These leaves these:</P>
<PRE>
RBQNKGNEBR
RBQNKENGBR
</PRE>
<P>The first one is the Grotesque Chess array. The other one may be superior. It puts the weakest of the compound pieces in the center, and it separates the two compounds that move as Rooks. One thing I didn't like about Grotesque Chess was how easily the Queen and Guard could team up because of their proximity to each other, but I had regarded this as a necessary evil to protect all Pawns. I shall test this other arrangement and see if I wish to make it the new array for Grotesque Chess. This is a prerogative I take while the game is still in its infancy. I now have a ZRF that plays Grotesque Chess, and with just some slight modifications, I can do some playtesting with it.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In case anyone is wondering, it may be worth stating that the origin of
the piece names used here is Bird's Chess.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>It has already been stated on the page.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with the others that this variant is far from grotesque.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Well, I'm pleased by that. But from the common Chess-is-the-only-Chess-variant-anyone-needs perspective, it probably is grotesque.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps as the distinctive feature is having Knights so near the middle a good name might be Mid(k)night Chess.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>That may be the best suggestion I've heard so far. But I still like the name Grotesque Chess. It's a name that's harder for people to pass by without wondering what it's about.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
On the other hand Grotesque Chess would be a far better name for the variant currently called British Chess, which was mentioned in an earlier comment.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>No, you're quite wrong about that. British Chess is a beautiful game. Also, given how the game is so based on British heraldry and other British themes, it would be a grave insult to the British to call it by that name.</P>
I think I'll stick with the current setup. I like the symmetry of having two diagonal moving pieces next to each other on each side.
<P>Charles Gilman writes:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you want further discussion on the above topic,here or on the
British Chess page?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>I will pick up this discussion on the British Chess page.</P>
Caïssa Britannia. British themed variant with Lions, Unicorns, Dragons, Anglican Bishops, and a royal Queen. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman wrote on the Grotesque Chess page:
Being British myself, I feel more qualified to what is a grave insult to the British, and it is because I found the name British Chess insulting that I suggested giving the variant of that name a different one distancing it ftrom Britain while reflecting a British oppinion of it!
As far as I can tell, your problem with the name stems from your English (not British) pride and your prejudice against Scotland, as your main complaint has been that the Unicorn (which represents Scotland) is more powerful than the Lion (which represents England). This is not a matter of insulting the British, and although you come from Britain, you speak only for your own personal prejudices and not for your whole nation.
Aberg variation of Capablanca's Chess. Different setup and castling rules. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Going on the assumption that Hans Aberg gets notified whenever a new comment is added to this page, let me mention here that I have now released a Zillions Rules File that plays Aberg's Capablanca variation. Unlike the ZRF I originally released years ago, this one gets the setup correct, and it implements free castling. There is a link to it just above the comments section.
Capablanca's chess 
. Version using Alfaerie graphics.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This file is now obsolete. My latest version of my Large Chess ZRF uses the Alfaerie graphics, as well as other graphic sets, and it implements both 10x8 versions of Capablanca's Chess, as well as various related games.
Okay, I see that the actual file is alfaerie.zip, which includes more than the Capablanca ZRF. So, more specifically, the Capablanca ZRF in that collection is now obsolete.
Caïssa Britannia. British themed variant with Lions, Unicorns, Dragons, Anglican Bishops, and a royal Queen. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman wrote:
I have NEVER mentioned the Lion in my comments on this variant, so your accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice is unfounded abuse, and it happens to be untrue. Changing their relative powers would not help.
Then I apologize for that much. My memories must have gotten messed up.
have you had any positive British response to this variant?
Aside from harrassment from you, I'm not aware of any British response.
It may be a perfectly playable game, but its theme does not work well enough to warrant the name British Chess.
I'm glad you think well enough of the game. But the theme of the game is Britain. You're not going to find a more British theme than that. The name was never an afterthought to the game. The theme came first, and the game grew out of the theme.
In every historic real British variant that I can think of, Bishop means what it means in FIDE Chess.
So what? It is not a historic variant. It is not a regional variant. It is a thematic variant.
There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and have the advantage of being offensive.
I have only one other name for it that would suit it well, and that name is Elizabethan Chess. Your notion that being offensive would be an advantage for the name is completely puzzling.
American Revolutionary Chess - highlights origin in nation founded in move away from being British, but has disadvantage of no connection with French Revolutionary Chess.
I don't follow that last part. Why would a connection with the French Revolution, with which the game has no connection at all, be an advantage for the name?
Botched Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, reflects at least one British opinion of it, ties in with my coinage 'Botched Bishop' for a Bishop relying on an exclusively non-capturing move for unbinding.
That's just abuse on your part.
Brutish Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, only one letter different for recognition, and the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.
How on earth could that be considered brutish? You are just making no good sense at all.
Hollywood Chess - after the world's most famous faux-Britain factory.
The game has nothing to do with Hollywood.
Supporter Chess - describes the heraldic role common to the three exotic pieces, and the only one in which the Lion is specifically English.
Is supporter a technical term in heraldry? I'm not familiar with the meaning of the word you seem to be using.
Unbritish Chess - accurately describes both the game's origin and its failure to 'pass' as British.
Not quite. By descent, I am part English, Scottish, and Irish. Where I live was once a British colony, and people here still speak the same language as people in Britain do. So I am not unbritish. Besides that, I am a big fan of Dr. Who, Monty Python, British comedy, British rock groups (including U.K.), British operatic singers, and British literature from Shakespeare to Emily Bronte. Culturally speaking, I am much more British than I am French, Dutch, or American Indian -- even though those are also part of my ancestry. Culturally speaking, I am even more British than I am Canadian, and Canada is just a short drive from where I live. So don't tell me I am not British.
There is more to being British than living in Britain or being a citizen of the U.K., and just because you live in Britain and were born there, it doesn't make you an authority on all things British. Your opinion of the game's name is the opinion of one very opinionated man who seems to have an obsession about naming things. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, and you do not speak with any degree of authority. I find your opinions on names, not only for this game, but also for piece names, most unwelcome. I normally just ignore your piece name articles, which I feel have no proper place on this website, but when you continue hounding me like Javert to Jean Valjean, I am going to speak my mind about you.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.