[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's popular large chess variant on 10 by 10 board. Rules and links. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]We have panned Grand Chess several times elsewhere but never directly on its page. This game is a pitiful rerun for uncreative minds. If its date were 1800 or 1900, sure, there would be slight historical interest, thought not much in light of Carrera's, Turkish ones and all the others, but in 1980s it amounts to nothing. There are mediocre patents from 1970s with the same pieces that never reach this website. RN and BN are inherently inferior to RB, and medieval ingenuity made the right choice for the new Queen as full-stength RB(not one- or two-stepping) around 1496. Those prescient individuals from Italy and/or Spain presumably ignored out of hand BN, RN as weird, awkward, ineffectual exotics. Moreover, in all the Carrera derivatives, the individual Knights suffer overwhelmed by gross compounds. Grand's board acts overspacious and underutilized, largely because the misguided leaps to 100 squares increase over 50% the 1500-year 64-square standard and cannot cope. All this having been said before, the critique belongs here in the bowels of this loser. [Afterthought: Hey granted it is still a suitable game to build a player's rating at ridiculous one move a day with its straightforward standard moves]
R+Ferz,B+Wazir, RB, RN and BN all need explanation, as somewhat does 'N+nonroyal King'. First, it worsens 8x10 Carrera's to add squares and not pieces. Carrera's of dubious playability has much historical importance in creativity. Anticipating JG's rationale for GrCh, corner squares for Rook stand out. How about a spike for Bishop instead? It makes more sense because B (and N) are disadvantaged more than R by the two stock pseudo-compounds RN,BN. Rather than empty row for Rook alone, just add (test your visualization) solitary squares k2,l3,m4,n5,m6,l7,k8 reconnecting to j9. The other Bishop spike, or half-diamond, would be skewed oppositely between a2 and a10. (Rightly these should apply to mere 8x10) Two Bishop double-spikes for 'Bishop+Wazir', Queen and Cardinal, two holes in the board, unlike Morley. F V Morley's 'My One Contribution to Chess' is a 1940s classic, preceding GrCh by 40 years with the same type of empty corridors.
Cataclysm. Large board game with short-range pieces designed to be dramatic without being overly complicated or dragging on too long. (12x16, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With respect for Strong's himself frequent evaluation of others' normal-size variates or piece-values, I have to agree 100% with the sense of M.Winther's 5May2007 Comment, 'I SEE NO POINT IN THIS[caps. added], as this variant is virtually unplayable. ...too long to play. Could somebody please explain the credo behind these constructs? Are they to be regarded as pieces of art, or what?' We just take Cataclysm as 'Sarcasm'. No one in the outside world would be interested in anything like this. We assume it must be a joke. The proponents of multiform ethos never understand that those at opposite extreme are serious thinking there are only 20, or 100, or 200 important Chess forms to consider during an era, never thousands. Hey, for many, many very good players there is only the ONE true Chess, and no changing that. Thus the effort should be to find those 100 not devise obsessively willy-nilly. Contributor Winther may be intermediate, but I stand opposite the Joe Joyce-expressed 'Let a thousand flowers bloom' and stay here presumptively for sanity at the Alice-like tea party. If only they could imagine a Boston Tea Party instead, they have 50 standouts but not 500, and Cataclysm is one of their backwater exercises in whatever.
New thread of Demonstrations that Marshall(RN) & Cardinal(BN) are fatally flawed, to be extended. DEMO (I): Dave's Silly Chess Game (2x2) 2 q_k 2 m_k 2 c_k 1 K_Q makes sense. 1 K_M and 1 K_C do not. Think about it. DEMONSTRATION (II): Conclusion of 'Multipath Chess Pieces': 'Beyond chronology, any rule of movement writ large, having real-world counterparts allegorically, describes something multiform and multipath, whereof reduction to mere leaper or rider is actually the special case'. Thus the NORM is multi-path. A piece that moves to only (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) and (1,5), conventional Rook squares, called by Betza Short Rook, moves stepwise like Wazir. But that is only one possibility. For example, 'Sissa', moving any number as Bishop and same number 'orthogonally in one direction', also reaches Rook squares: e1-f2-e2, e1-f2-g3-f3-e3 and so on. Sissa is two-path to Rook squares (e.g., e1-d2-e2 etc.) In reality, there are innumerable pathways to each Rook square. Frivolously, 'Earthquake' goes 13 straight forward, 12 diagonally backward and 12 cross-horizontally to Rook (1,2). Also an example, specifying an unnamed piece moving e1-f2-e2-f3-e3-f4 and so on being two-way also to Rook squares, differently from Sissa. Once specifying a path such as e1-e2-e3-e4-e5-e6-e7-e8, it establishes an extreme no longer normal 'multi-path', in this case, a Rook Slider, one-path. VERY OPPOSITE EXTREME is no pathway at all, a Leaper, such as Dabbabah to (1,3) or Trebouchet(1,4), or Camel(2,4). There would be innumerable multi-path alternatives to any of those target squares of prototypical Leaper, all become inapplicable, once defined as such.
DEMONSTRATION (II)conclusion: In the multi-path model, Marshall (Knight+Rook)is of itself kin to combining apples and oranges, elements from the extremes of the categories. (Knight+Camel) is properly a compound of leapers. Knight plus Zebra is a compound. Rook+Sissa is a compound, in part, making three-path to Rook squares. Cardinal(Knight+Bishop) is a 'pseudo-compound', having combination rules of movement for patenting and also everday purposes. Neither do we consider Bishop+Antelope(4,5 leaper) a compound, but a combination piece. Antelope does not augment the Bishop's move with a pathway, as for instance Crooked Rook would. Disparagingly, 'pseudo-compound' fits also because of improbability that movements combining powers at opposite extremes, namely leaper and one-path slider, could be very effective within one piece. Hence their unpopularity. The term is in nature of argumentative style because more important is accurate description of the rules of movement. So, in our system, there are compound leapers and compound sliders(like QUEEN!) and compound multi-path movers(FALCON, SCORPION, DRAGON, PHOENIX, ROC) and others(like riders), but no compound of Leaper and Slider. Marshall or Cardinal as compounds are misnomers and rather combination pieces.
Top shuttlecock speed 200 mph, Badminton is standardized (Olympics 1992 on) and it never took 100 tries. Official Rules & court: 17x44, 20' doubles. Net 5', Aluminum, graphite, carbon fibre racket wt. 2-3.5, l. 27''. 15 points to win 2 of 3 games wins match, single-elimination tournaments. In 1990's CVPage was two-track: multiform and on-a-mission for alternatives to dead Mad Queen. In those days FRC, Capablanca and Centennial were early contenders amidst all the run-of-the-mill(fun and funny) noncontenders, and everyone understood the difference between the two tracks. All knew(usually) when Betza was serious or sarcastic. Betza et al. would weigh in earnestly when pressed on faults/problems of 8x8 FIDE, the focal point and jumping board for track two. Then CVPage T2, with standard 8x8 point of departure, was reminiscent of DPritchard's 1994 ECV write-up under 'Capablanca Chess' and worldwide 1920's debate. Please read those two pages to re-create the CVPage scene too circa 1999. Today with more knowledge and knowhow, CVPage or its enthusiasts are yet less inclined to standardize any new Chesses, based on the above or any of Rococo, Promoter's, Falcon, Eight-Stone, AltOrth Hex, Jacks&Witches, Nomic, Bifurcation pieces, Quintessential, Eurasian or whatever finalists would emerge from a search. Their devil-may-care became regress, progress was left for years 1996-2002 approximately, and other entities will bear the torch.
Thanks for excellent input and we agree 100% with JJoyce's except one mis-read: instead, 'pseudo-compound' is nothing but innocent undiplomatic, vernacular synonym for combination piece. Yes, very good interesting piece. Chatham's replacements, in our system, are to be developed in Demos III through XX against Carrera's stock.
Waiting on DEMO III against Carrera stock Champion(R+N) and Centaur(B+N), this thread wants to show they are incompletely-examined implementations to those (2,3) plus (1,2)(1,3)(1,4)...squares. JJoyce's generic DW, Dabbabah-Wazir, he describes in number of different implementations. Broadly, they are all 'sequential pieces' whether there are two or three legs, whether repeat Dabbabah-Dabbabah is allowed, and so on. If memory serves, Antoine Fourriere deleted a Comment in 2004 saying he prefers a piece moving to Falcon (2,4 and 3,4) squares by way of two legs: Knight leap then mandatory one-step outwardly to those (Camel) or (Zebra) arrival squares. Differently, JJoyce's legs up to three for this DW are optional. AF's description would also include recent Sissa in the same group of 'mandatory sequential', but 13th C. Gryphon would fall in JJ's 'optional'. Sequential piece, Multi-path piece, Leaper, Slider(one-path) are four fairly distinct categories. No full taxonomy attempted like RBetza or DHowe['A Taxonomy']: ''venture too deep into the jungle of classification'' we used in year 2000 FC article. Now for convenience, we call stock RN and BN 'combination pieces' because made of Leaper+Slider, functional opposites, but 'pseudo-compound' is descriptive as well. Any Leaper is a multi-path form with an infinity of paths, therefore no path at all in automatic shift to an arrival square(s). Any Slider one-path has the potential for other pathways that could be added to piece-move definition. Therefore, multi-path is the linking category or organizing principle. Even the above sequential pieces are built according to definition of particular multi-pathers' units.
Given that the Mad Queen as such is dead. Like many-headed Hydra, a new
Carrera derivative most every decade since year 1617. Is Carrera's worthy
companion piece? A Hera? Or only weak sister, lady-in-waiting? To extent
JJoyce's Comment about 'Rhino' relates to this M/C thread, it suggests
Mao and Moa compounded with Rook and Bishop respectively, instead of
Knight with either. No secret then where we may well he headed: in place
of awkward combination pieces NR and NB, instead overlapping sliders, like Queen itself, making true compounds. We accumulate the evidence in DEMOS,
no one necessarily more or less convincing in itself, toward a preponderance of evidence. DEMONSTRATION III: On 3x3 board and all larger
3 K__ __c (rectangular) boards from a legal position, Centaur(BN) and
2 __ __ King cannot checkmate lone King, with latter choosing who
1 __ __k moves first. Champion(RN) can: like one of some seven
deadly sins, the fatal flaw asymmetry.
DEMONSTRATION IV(symmetry): Ignoring the other back-rankers, consider the
Pawns protected by Queen(RB), Champion, Centaur. There is no way to avoid
a___a___P___a___aq__qm__q___m___P___m a = pawn protected by Centaur,C
x___x___C___x___x___Q __x___M___x___x m = pawn protected by Champion
b c d e f g h i
at least two unsymmetrical unprotected Pawns, without positioning Champion and Centaur themselves unsymmetrically. That Pawns may subsequently be protected by other piece placement is irrelevant. This asymmetry here again being sign of certain imbalance, or disequilibrium, in power distribution among the pieces.Subtlety. Subtle T, Sublet, Letups, Upset, Setup:
DEMONSTRATION V: Think of Centaur(BN) and
n___n___n___n___ ___ ___n___n___n___n Champion(RN)in their Knight mode
P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P___P Then from most of the starting
x___N___C___x___x___x___x___M___N___x arrays with these pieces, there
a b c d e f g h i j are eight possible 'Knight'
openings: N-a3 or -b3 or -c3 or -d3 or -g3 or -h3 or -i3 or -j3.
DEMONSTRATION VI: Think of p___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___M___
Champion and Queen in their k___p___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___R___
Rook mode. All four Ranks 1, ___ ___p___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___R___
2,3,4 are fully controlled in ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___Q___
this (incomplete) endgame by a b c d e f g h i j
four 'Rooks' except squares a2 and b2. Subtle.
___ ___ ___ ___C___o___o DEMONSTRATION VII
___ ___ ___o___B___B___o o = control by diagonal w/o capture
___ ___o___o___o___Q___ Think of Centaur(BN) and Queen(RB) in
___o___o___o___o___ ___ their Bishop mode against White's King,
o___o___r___o___ ___ ___ Queen, Rook, Rook. Four 'Bishops',
q___r___o___ ___ ___ ___ four long diagonals fully under control.
k___o___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Overkill.DEMONSTRATION VIII: (Mate in Four) Black has just played R j5-j4 Check. Black's only other piece is Rook at b8. White has full complement of ten 8 __R__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ pieces/ten pawns. The Two Rooks Alone 7 __ __ __ __ __K__ __ __ __ checkmate in at most four moves by 6 __ __ __p__ __p__ __b__ __ Rook at j4 in turn capturing any 5 p__ __p__ __p__ __p__p__p__ interposer across the entire rank 4 4 k__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __R to White King. At most, in turn, 3 r__ __q__ __ __ __ __ __ __ White Champion(BN), Marshall(RN), 2 p__ __p__ __ __m__ __ __ __c Queen and Pawn-c2 interpose only to 1 __b__ __n__ __ __ __n__ __r be captured. So what? Well, it is a a b c d e f g h i j rather straightforward unpeculiar position(only omitting any other logical Black pieces as irrelevant). Get a feel for how there is simply no subtle move-order for White to consider: Queen first only makes it mate in one or two instead. Whether Marshall goes -e4, -e5, or -e6 same outcome; ponderous, is that not so? Just play abstractly the doomed line of bowling pins across Rank 4 for the awkward constraint RN/BN pair tend to impose. As infinite in variety as tired 8x8 itself they may be, yet Cardinal/Marshall 8x10 positions typically present such rather uninteresting interactions. Cannot future composers find more promising piece material for their skills to work? Are there not some other optimizations than top-heavy ancient Carrera-Centaur and Carrera-Champion?
List of fairy pieces. A long list of fairy piece name and sources.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Here are several hundred more from an earlier generation's try (1998 article) for recent threads 'Multiform' and 'FatallyFlawed' and also 'Complementarity' and 'ShortRange Project'. Figure about half these would ShortRange-qualify, and when we called it 'The Deranged Project' to JGood last year, hey were just kidding, because in fact are, and further intending to contribute. With our tentative best alternative to RN and BN as (R,Mao) and (B,Moa) instead, seriously thinking they are superior, we need the right evaluative criteria. Recently some have used the old cliche, 'Have you played it?' That was popular around 2001 or 2002, and had died out after Michael Howe averred that a trained observer can tell how a game plays just perusing the Rules. Case closed, tacit agreement came because, of course, it is impossible to do justice playing 10,000 different Chesses. My corroborating Comment in 2004 was that a good game surely warrants 10 days(hour a day), and multiply 10 days by 4000 CVs, and that 40,000 days have been reached by only maybe 1,000-10,000 out of the total 100 billion humans that ever lived. So, realistically, who can conceivably keep up? This List does not define all its pieces but they can be found. In a random sample, letter K, letter T, we know about half of them right away and where to go for about half more, so 'List of Fairy Pieces' 75% comprehensible. Which are only fanciful? Or are some more important than others? It seems incumbent to develop systematic judging by principles other than playing. Excuse this Comment's mixing together in the general idea mere pieces and actual full-fledged CVs, there being some rough comparability if only in the utter lack of limit to inventiveness. [Also, later noticing that Truelove's own Comment says all pieces in this particular list are from DP's 1994 ECV]
Constraints of Joe Joyce remind us of over-four-years-ago Luotuoqi nominations and the game that was designed on 8x8. That effort was whimsical. JJoyce's proposed contest could be instead a group effort at a serious '10x10' that nobody really seems to get right. Do it by Committee, like Luotuoqi, answering each JJoyce question in turn, and once three or four agree, that will be the form approved: (1) Minimum # pieces (2) FIDE or not, and so on, as in Joyce 27.Aug.07 Comment twelve back.
L. The list of official nominations for the variant-by-committee.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The main Commenters and proponents for various favoured forms here in early 2003 were Glenn Overby, Doug Chatham, John Lawson, Peter Aronson, and Jianying Ji. On 8x8 Pawns became Eaglets (unpromoting), Knights were replaced by Mules also colour-changing, Bishops Diagonal Bypassers, Rook additional power of one-path Camel, Queen = Tower of Hanoi, and Kings unable to castle have full-spectrum two-step leap initially. (Rook here is similar to what 'FatallyFlawedM/C' thread is developing with respect to Mao and Moa breaking down Knight's move to go respectively with R & B)
List of fairy pieces. A long list of fairy piece name and sources.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JJoyce asks under 'Multiform': 'How many people actually read this board?' Answer, probably closer to 10 than 100 are really following with comprehension the Multiform thread, 'Complementarity' article/Comments and 'Short-Range' article's Comments, as well as our own 'FatallyFlawed' thread -- all four more or less about proliferation of Rules-Sets/pieces. There are some neat complementary pieces proposed or revived. As Commenter, I have not myself yet dissected STrenholme's recent long Comment on pieces for example, and we spend a lot of time at this, and intend to try to relate Trenholme's and JGoode's lists to what RBetza already did. Precisely because JJoyce's system is work-in-progress, there are fewer close readers, because people prefer a finished product and to be told that 'thus and such' are the categories/criteria on pieces/values. Experts lay the groundwork and everyone will follow, including the next Bobby Fischers or Paul Morphys. Lately, Mark Thompson(about Omega Chess), JGoode and Greg Strong(about some CV of their own) have also chided, 'Did you play it?' It needs to be drilled in that is all but impossible for every wild idea. One cannot really play-test with discrimination more than 1 or 2 Rules-Sets a day. Proof that Falcon is an actual mathematical complement of R,N,B, we may as well start in own established threads, not expecting anymore the simpleminded attacks of the early aughts(Aughts are present decade following the nineties, right?, getting back to basics).
Falcon Chess: Background and Patent Text Excerpts. With background summary of chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the input. That one is called Cheops Falcon Chess over here and actually since 1993, and Abdul-Rahman mentions it too in Comment yr. 2007 at that Falcon Chess year 2000 article, but there is no Preset for this FRNBQK... We think it works oddly to develop Falcon and to tuck co-equal Falcon in the corner Omega-like just to preserve more of a 'RNB' semblence. It ranks 4th or 5th to taste, and right now RNFBQK... is official Chess, always subject to be overtaken by the one ARSibahi likes RFNBQK..., or original RNBF..., or even one with Knights more centralized, or Falcon's centralized RNBQFFKBNR, Osiris' Falcon Chess protecting them all too. [Maybe a re-look makes this 'Cheops Falcon-cornered' currently third choice, so hoping for a Preset to try it here too]
Falcon Chess RFNB. Falcon Chess with a new setup.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Okay sure, and please correct this one's No. to 5690334.
Nachtmahr. Game with seven different kinds of Nightriders. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nice work describing some new Nightrider-types. Jorg Knappen, is Quintessence one-path or two-path? In the drawing it shows a1-b3-d2-e4... Must Quintessence stay between the sides of the right angle formed by a-file and 1-rank? Or if there is a file x, can Quintessence from a1 go a1-x3-b4-a6-c7...? There is a Game Courier game in progress with that conflict.
L. Fun contest: Help us create a new chess variant by committee.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Seconding JJoyce's, we favour a new Luotuoqi-style selection process instead like over 4 years ago. Vote factor by factor from Ranks to Rooks to Rules. Otherwise, it is just everyone going their own way again, for individual credit or notoriety. There is new level of knowledge now that, for ex., Editors from long ago would not be able to cope. Luotuoqi, having been for fun, deserves serious effort sometime too. It may become means to reconcile, or mediate, Rococo-Ultima-Maxima types with Lions&Unicorn-GrandShantranj-Quintessential types into one hybrid perfected set of Rules. When Abdul-Rahman asked recently what is the best 100-square(decimal)CV, we were inclined to say Centennial. However, Duke-JGood just completed 81-move game of C. was way too long: inadequate, not for the general public. There is crying need for superior Decimal since there are none now, and so recommend that size for future Luotuoqi.
Interloper Chess. 
Introducing the Interloper, a highly invulnerable attacking piece (with zrf).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is new departure for M Winther to go to 100 squares in own game. Maybe Bifurcation pieces too could demand 100 or even just full 8x10 for best treatment. Most of them implement so far on 64 or 66 or 68 squares with Omega-like corners not true 8x10. Were any of Venator, Buccaneer, DoubleCannon, Gladiatrix, Meridian, Murmillo, Naiad, Secutor, Alseid, Amiral, Belfry, Bombadier, Gastrophete, Doublebarrel, Castalia, Columbiad, CrossRook, Dimachaer, Gaul, Helmsman, Hoplit, Howitzer, Ladon, Laquear, Leto, Mangonel, Mortar, Trebouchet, Thraex, or Turret implemented on new-standard 80 squares? Not many, one being the CrossBishop, it appears, but they all could use more room for sure with their split continuations. If there were a natural mechanism to change one bifurcation piece-mode to another, the Bifurcation family could be answer to the elusive leap to Decimal 100 squares, if it is necessary to change so drastically, as Centennial Chess' introduction espouses. Finally, to mix threads, we are surprised to see JJoyce's phrase today 'sufficiently chesslike that it could be the next FIDE Chess'. That is where Winther's work is strong in always keying off the standard 8x8 six-piece-types for what warrants being next.
Except Contract Bridge has an inventor, Harold S. Vanderbilt in 1925, railroad heir while on a cruise. That would be the same time within couple of years most of the talking about Capablanca Chess took place. Then they silenced any dissent in Chess, and broader games like the new Contract, then Duplicate Bridge may have been factors as distraction for intelligentsia, but especially establishment of FIDE itself during the same 1920's entrenched the orthodoxy and scotched Capa's ideas.
Capablanca must have mostly timed his 8x10 board size espousal to coincide with FIDE's founding July 1924, in the works to establish Orthodoxy as paramount or even exclusive. With that in mind, Capa was saying in effect that, hey, there are other possibilities, not so fast. Notice that DBPritchard gives year 1921 (p.38 ECV 1994) as J.R.Capablanca's reviving of Carrera-Bird Chess in new array of his own ''following his World Championship victory over Lasker (1921).'' At the end Pritchard adds an annotated game of 49 moves from London 'Daily Mail' of newspaper 1928 edition. So, lively discussion took place about Capablanca Chess stretched out from 1921-1928, because there are Comments in ECV by a score of other characters from Sir Richard Barnett to Archbishops Davidson and Lindsay to Emanuel Lasker and Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch themselves. Capa challenged Orthodox Chess, only one form of it, being unjustifiably entrenched and threw out his 8x10 and 10x10 commonsensical alternatives, just enough of a spanner in the works, from today's perspective. He had the courage, in whatever lip service to the new Federation Internationale des Echecs, to see its sure evolution and simply say, 'I dissent'. Maybe the thread really only picks up again with Fischer Random Chess about 1994 or 1995, when Fischer spoke out on behalf of that 160-year-old form in Argentina.
Back one day, to JJoyce's question, what would players most accept for change keeping 8x8, I would say the Queen. Notice that everyone stays in their Comments within pre-established philosophical zone we have heard before. GGifford is the eternal apologist for FIDE OrthoChess as having been perfected. Oppositely, we maintain consistently that mad Queen, your Orthodox, is dead. Or, as the Judge said 100 years ago in sentencing cannibal Alferd Packard to be hanged til he's 'dead, dead, dead'(he was later commuted), Orthodox Chess is dead, dead, dead. Who wants to master what Computers find the right move for in split seconds? Sure a million zombies are still playing it, but Internet play in particular becomes morally corrupting in encouraging computer aid(cheating) and dissuading creative moves. Some mores, or social changes, go fast, others drag on at length: it took Christianity couple hundreds of years to replace the religions of Nature, hearth, and usages that prevailed around the Mediterranean: actually FIDE-type mad-Queen has been steadily dying for 150 years already. Precisely Computers are why FIDE replacements, whatever 2 or 20, evolving must continue to evolve(not synonymous with 'to progress'), to stay ahead of them. 100% agreement with JJoyce that their FIDE can increasingly be ignored for all the new forms and means emerging.
David Pritchard says in Introduction to 1994 ECV that, were Queen a Marshall(RN) these 511 years, OrthoChess would have been none the worse. Wrong. It just shows DP did not know everything anymore than Ralph Betza does. Strong defense of Queen over poor RN takes an essay, as being done in our ongoing 'FatallyFlawedMC' thread topic. 'Replace' Orthodox Chess is just semantic distinction(not like *replace* gas lighting with electricity): anyone can surmise (as probably even Kramnik would) that by 2050 people will play OrthoChess percentagewise far less frequently to other CVs, the way we play a little Shatranj here in 2007 but not much. In mid-1990's we played Falcon in lieu of Queen on 8x8 a lot and consider it about as good as OrthoChess but no better. [Preset Jeremy?] But the downward spiral of 8x8 size itself led us deliberately to omit 8x8 altogether from Patentings of Falcon. So, in sort of benevolent loophole, anyone can use Falcon on 8x8, along with such as JJoyce BentHero he mentions. In fact, please do so on 8x8, as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi and GWDuke have done in recent Presets FC-ES and FC-KnightsEdge. Historically, Rook and Knight are the oldest moves, are they not? So, some of the logic of couple recent remarks of JJoyce about Knight were off the mark.
JJoyce for one has misapprehension about 'Mad Queen' and phrase 'Mad Queen is Dead' repeated. He is in good company one supposes because it had to be explained to FDuniho years ago. Italian 'Regina Rabiosa' (and Spanish 'Reina Loca' we have also seen) was simply the Latin-area name from the outset for the 64-square Chess following Shatranj. 'Regina Rabiosa' does not refer to the Queen per se, but to the game. See HJRMurray reference 'History of Chess' 1912. So, 'Mad Queen' is synonymous with OrthoChess(DPritchard's favourite usage), FIDE Chess, Orthodox Chess -- all the same. We left out the history lately because Comments already covered it twice. Their revolution in the 1490's was to bring on board 'Modern' Bishop, 'Modern' Queen, and Pawn two-step option. Much later in 1800's came more standardized Rules for Castling and En Passant. Even play of varying forms of this same 6-piece-type RNBQKP with Passar Bataglia or Italian free castling, we would tend to call Mad Queen Chess from its original name. Even FischerRandom we are inclined to call Mad Queen, being basically the same ancient form. To drive home its antiquity, initiation of Regina Rabiosa, following Shatranj, goes back to before either Shakespeare or Pocahantas were born. [WShakespeare's 'The Tempest' with setting in Caribbean America has the famous scene of Ferdinand and Miranda playing Chess including her line 'O Brave New World that has such people in it', (over Chess)]
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.