[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Graeme, for excellent Preset. Abdul-Rahman has it right since we have exchanged information on Falcon Hexagonal Chess since beginning 2007.
Over here 20.August.07 JJoyce says, 'Think of the genius who first invented the Knight move; and then wonder what his/her friends said the first time that Crooked jump move was used on them. How popular was that piece in the beginning?' Well, In the Beginning, were the Knight, Rook and King -- to be brief and reductionist, not entirely inaccurate metaphorically either. So, those semi-ideal 'friends' would have been well used to the Knight, not the other way around. PAronson may know more about appearance of Knight, or Rook, or King, in early board games Before the Common Era. Pertinently, Shatranj, and Chaturanga before that from year 600, have only those three movers perfectly the same of the six-piece-type method. That generality was the main objection to couple of JJoyce offhand remarks. [Royal Falcons etc. being studied]
Ultra Slanted Escalator Chess. Game on an asymmetrical board of 84 squares with Crabs and Ultras. (10x9, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Around 2002-2003 Ultra Slanted Escalator Chess was extensively Commented. However, only couple other Comments appear right here, so Ralph Betza must have made remarks about USEC elsewhere. So what? One, it shows JJoyce's recent point that it is difficult to find some material even with CVPage's Superior indexing, because of sheer volume(fortunately we always know our way around). Two, it shows how fleeting a purportedly good CV invention can be, this one a Contest winner. Who in the current crop knows USEC and its cousins like Slanted Escalator Chess? Okay, follow the links and at Slanted Escalator Chess, 'gnohmon' (=Betza) rates SEC 'Excellent' and informally 'interesting', and also says with reason 'Bishops should be replaced by something else'. Also, RBetza addresses White first-move and other advantages in the 60-square one(usually an issue with smaller Chesses like that more so). RBetza also hypothesizes putting a Nightrider or Rose on board. Maybe Zillions has lot of USEC and SEC play. Look at David Short's extensive work explaining piece-moves at SEC. We include this inventor's Double Chess as part of backdrop for Complete Permutation Chess although really 8x16 alreadly appears more than once in DP's 1994 ECV. These Escalator ones are comprehensible and likely playable, whereas Schizophrenic and Existentialist (which has GC Preset) may be over-complicated. DShort has fifteen(15) CVs listed under 'Invented', the minimum criterion we use for 'Prolific' category. Here is record of the years of invention: 1999-1; 2000-2; 2001-3; 2002-9; 2004-1. The typical bell-shaped design trajectory can be detected albeit skewed right by so many in the one particular year.
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It should not be necessary or desirable to change Knight to Gnu just to complete access to some surrounding set of hexes. As it is, Falcon being colour-changing goes from 1 of 3 'colours' to either of the other 2. Then whichever colour of those two it reaches, from that arrival square, now the new departure square, Falcon again follows the pattern of going to one of 2 colours other than its own very departure-square colour. Following through with a large enough sequence of moves Falcon, like Knight but unlike Bishop, can reach every hexagonal space on the board. Great concept.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]'1a2a3e4a5b6a7a8a9a10a11a12a12a13a14a15a16a17a18a19a20a' represents in our system on size 8x10, out of *91.5 Trillion* possible chess variates of Falcon, the one Gary Gifford is calling this week under his Preset 'Latrunculi duo milia et septum' on 8x8. On 8x8 it works without any extra Falcon piece, but the same enhanced Bishop and Rook. I.e., we use here the Crowned Rook (R+Ferz) and Crowned Bishop(Bishop+Wazir) with Falcon, so there is that difference. Yet Gifford says self-righteously in Comment below respecting some conceit of 'quantity and quality' that 'I am not impressed about out ability to greatly increase the number just for the sake of doing so'. We imagine then that Gifford has some technique to single out R-Ferz and B-Wazir on 8x8 as particularly of high quality, suitably screened for display separately. Instead, we represent that one single CV along with the other 91,499,999,999,999 without discrimination. On 8x8 board, what about the other trillion that can easily be derived the same way as here in '91.5 Trillion'? Just prefix [88] to represent that size, eliminate Rule Number 6 about Falcon alternatives, and somewhere on the order of 1 to 10 Trillion easily remain systematically described unambiguously with little effort. Well, clearly 100, or even as many as 500, of them are already enunciated by others within CVPage, DPritchard's ECV or elsewhere, so how easy to add one, two, three (uncreatively or self-servingly) from such still-very-extensive available sample.
Latrunculi duo milia et septum. Chess with rook/ferz & bishop/wazir substitutes for rooks and bishops.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is really Poor unimaginative practice in several respects. There is no effort to cite precedents of previous use. As far back as Duke of Rutland's Chess year 1747 exists use of Crowned Rook(Rook+Ferz), and Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's Chess recently has the Crowned Bishop(Bishop+Wazir). There would be a dozen other prior uses easily found in the West a few of which we may add later. [ ] No analysis, no justification, no game scores. The inventor does not even start a game to play, just throws up a Preset. Maybe it appears GGifford only has a rather nice name, 'Latrunculi' and finds any convenient embodiment as excuse to employ it. That one good feature, the name Latrunculi, has interesting Internet information not even attempted to be described or explained in the empty write-up.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks to Charles Daniel's recent input and rethinking our bias against cornered Falcon, because of dislike of Omega Chess, we now consider FRNBQKBNRF the second choice. The top three are close and should submit sometime to a vote if say there become ten or more participants weighing in, however informally, who will have studied the different arrays, instead of mainly our usual couple of confidantes. Omega's introduced pieces are on the edges and we never liked that game ever since the 1997-1999 period. But re-appraisal shows certain advantages to Falcon being there by contrast. So, after RNFBQKBFNR we have the Cheops' Falcon Chess FRNBQKBNRF presently. Thanks for recent inquiries. Hoping by these updates to avoid the boringly-extended debates on Carrera-Capablanca initial positions, none of which in the end are worth much, in view of factors under ongoing thread 'FatallyFlawedM/C' that Marshall and Cardinal are inherently inappropriate under close scrutiny.
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I had not even read Gilman's (nor Joyce's) Comments when rating FHC 'Excellent'. Aware of FHC for six or eight months now and already having opinions, the point of our Comment is that a Falcon's tour is possible. We credit Abdul-Rahman again for a job well-done in adapting the 15-year-old fourth fundamental square-board Chess piece to its reasonable, probably optimum, Hexagonal counterpart. Our word is 'colour-changing' not 'colour-switching'. Now looking over Gilman's, they seem to be analysis without the evaluation, that's fine.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]3e5b is one systematized CV. These Comments are supposed to be for this article '91.5 Trillion...' There is no evidence that JGifford or GJoyce have got past the title. Leaving out the defaults, which have 'a', simply '3e5b' describes a complete game here. To repeat, [3e5b] is one CV on 8x10 with a complete, unambiguous set of Rules. It has 'RNBFQKFBNR' array, Bishops enhanced by Wazir, and Rooks enhanced by Ferz. It should be a good playable game. The new Latrunculi Preset is a comparable game on 8x8 without Falcons and is no doubt very playable. However, it is Poor for having originally left out documentations. Probably still other games have already used (B+W) and (R+F) on 8x8 too; we expect that Ralph Betza did. It was the inventor's responsibility to research the prior art, or just not present the CV as own. The larger issue is not critique of one sloppy job of research, but Proliferation. We shall start a thread 'Proliferation' to reconnect to Comments made 2003-2005 on that issue. Thanks anyway to Gifford for adding the references, showing some inclination to do the right thing.
Latrunculi duo milia et septum. Chess with rook/ferz & bishop/wazir substitutes for rooks and bishops.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With more CVs every year, standards rise for responsibility on part of Inventors to research their work's prior art readily available on this site, in DPritchard's ECV(both editions), patent search engines, and so on. CVPage's new form asks how your idea differs from similar productions for that reason. Historical 18th-century Duke of Rutland's citing references is patently absurd. Thanks for adding the citations, but we think the idea for (B+W) and (R+F) on 8x8 is simply not new and so will try to uncover those prior uses we remember.
We are quite sure we will eventually add dozens of our own Comments here. GGifford's question is a Proliferation issue. Start with that CVPage has over 3000 CVs now with the blue-squared logos. I may be the last to have perused every single post since CVPage's first in 1995, now that FDuniho & RBetza are not active. Maybe David Howe or David Paulowich have, but not many others. Sorry this starting Comment is so brief and not incisive, but intend to make this major thread.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually, in one thousand(1000) lines of Falcon poetry, there is already much material, Gifford, about real Falcons as living species, ancient Egyptian avatars as well as modern symbols. GGifford seems to resent that it will take more work all the time to present anything valuable in CVs, and that mathematical treatment of the subject matter is inevitable. Your spontaneous assemblage of (R+F) and (B+W) is nothing but two people's subjective opinion that a particular form is more valuable, and please, GGifford and JJoyce both, let's agree to continue to adhere to the style Joyce himself enunciates in which not the more vociferous, but the more conscientious or analytical, prevail.
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Colour-changing is well-defined in my Comment about hexagonal Falcon: it just may not be Gilman's term. Broadly 'Non-colourbound' has unique meaning when there are three colours, so 'changing' seemed to be better as a new term, when making a second Comment about FHC. I noticed Gilman's 'colourswitching' without even trying to get his full Comment and then approached the Knight-Falcon-tour idea from that colour-changing vantage to highlight one ordinary feature. I need to review the distinctions here, because they seem interesting in this context, but they appear descriptive not evaluative, and not what someone designing would dwell on for piece-move choices, involving as they do a Move 2, Move 3 and so on. Okay, Charles, I will organize the concepts and get back, and the last couple sentences may be somewhat off the mark. 'Note that it's colour-switching like the Knight' in the text may be ARSibahi usage exactly like ours above using 'colour-changing', and it just does not happen to be Gilmanese: we are not sure whether your particular 'colour-switching' has caught on.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Earlier today GGriffith had a sentence posted 'I am not one who considers this Poor' about this same essay, then he deleted it along with other strange sentences, so the poor man is really agonizing over this. If you would, think of '91.5 Trillion' as a model for what is inevitably to come. I feel honoured by this particular Rating, thank you for it, and please do not be hypersensitive when we get around to your 20 CVs. In advance, most of them we happen to Rate will likely get 'Good', but that actually divides into Excellent Art work and Average playability. None of them appear to be much to play at first blush by our standards, yet thus will be glad to give a string of 6s and 7s out of 10(with explanations) for Griffith's competent work as and when our Comments ready. Since there are 3000 CVs here to Rate, it takes a little humility to see one's contributions in perspective, and eventually it will take mathematical and statistical organization to find the Excellent ones, or potential Orthodox replacements.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]True, the drop mechanism works so that the introduced pieces fit right in by being immediately protected whatever the bank-rank move may have been. Is Seirawan Chess presented then in the same serious vein as Fischer Random Chess? Maybe instead SC is sort of Chess-light for off-time club play not so serious. Or are Seirawan and Harper wanting to join the CV community, so we can expect more of these? I personally handed Yasser Seirawan face to face a copy of USP5690334(for Falcon) back in 1998 and basically appreciate and approve their showing interest in Rules changes like this. In prolific columns YSeirawan has panned GKasparov's Advanced Chess and been mostly indifferent to FRC.
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating][Taking exception to Gilman's 'never has a switching property' for a later Comment, let's start with basics:] With also ARS's indulgence, the colour changes get interesting in hexagonal. In squares the categories Slider, Leaper, and Multi-path are descriptive enough that we usually omit a colour-describing trailer. For example, a Dabbabah-Rider is understandably colour-bound. Most of us are content with using 'colourbound' for such as Bishop and Camel too. Easily understood. On the other hand, we hardly bother with 'colour-switching'...except Gilman. Now Knight is 'colour-switching', an informative description, in that each successive move alternates White to Black, and we would like to preserve the quality and integrity of the definitions from squares to hexes. First, in hexes new adjective 'colour-changing' we propose for a (mandatory) move to either of the other 2 colours, as with Glinski-FHC Knight and Falcon both. By their three-colour alternations they can reach every square, a desideratum for design. Please refer to the extended definition of 'colour-changing' in our earlier Comment. The famous problem theme of Knight Tour and Falcon Tour becomes possible when all squares and/or hexes can be reached. Are there 1000 possible Knight tours on these 121 hexes? Are there 10,000 Falcon tours on ARS's 121? We have no idea immediately even an approximation the answer to this topic for research. ['Noncolourbound' also to be taken up separately]
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Perfectly serious 732 TRILLION Falcon Chess Variants. The Model is fully extensible, both componentized and augmentable. Therefore, Rule Number 21 follows(new arrays): a-(default) standard RNBFQKFBNR, b-RBFNQKNFBR (Templar's), c-FBRNQKNRBF (Pyramids'), d-FRNBQKBNRF (Cheops'), e-BRNQFFKNRB (Horus'), f -RNBKFFQBNR (Osiris'), g RNBFQKFBNR (Sphinx), h FNRBQKBRNF (Nile). So, for example, simply '3e5b8c21d' is fully described as 8x10 Chess with medium Queen up to five spaces, Bishop-Wazir, Rook-Ferz positioned initially on second-choice array FRNBQKBNRF. Period. That's it. Complete game. No pretentious singling out one subjective form. All the supporting material, poetry, Mates in Two and Three, Presets entirely available through close links. This will be the last of the new arrays, because we eschewed that method as more for achieving quantity in the last couple paragraphs of our essay. Extensions 22 through 30(toward a GOOGOL variates, 10 to the 100th power) will be Rules changes continuing to be deemed the highlights of Chess Variant Page 1994-2008 incorporated to patented FC. We can do that and you cannot. Will we eventually use your pet Mutator or will your best-laid project be consigned to oblivion?
Game Courier. PHP script for playing Chess variants online.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Your welcome to use Falcon there staying on 8x8, as seem to be eager. [I see the 8x8 Short Chess Preset, which may be provisional and not appear later]
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating][Before going on to 'noncolourboundedness' etc.] 'Triangulate' is just defined as three moves returning to the same square as in the ordinary OrthoChess term itself we overlook. It means no more or less for exotic CV pieces. In '91.5 Trillion..' article, in a different concept using the name, we have a new Mutator defined in Rule Number 13 called 'Triangular Transference': 'Three same-side pieces that form a right triangle positionally, even if 2 or more are adjacent, mutually transfer the moving power of those 2 pieces that define the hypoten(e)use'. For another clarification, CGilman's latest Comment's last sentence assumes everyone well understands there are four(4) Dabbaba bindings in squares. To the question of 'significance', on Sibahi's and Glinski's hexagonals, one already stated is for the problem theme of Tours reaching every hex. The verb 'to matter' can have as wide or narrow scope as you want: bindings, or alternations among them, *matter* foremost for just their mathematical reality one supposes. In a case, maybe it *matters* to move in three not to same square (1,1), as in triangulating, but instead (1,2) or (2,1)-- using our notation for squares as blocks not steps: thus(1,2) is Wazir step one-path, or leap.
Latrunculi duo milia et septum. Chess with rook/ferz & bishop/wazir substitutes for rooks and bishops.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One of 400 CVs Rated, Latrunculi gets Poor simply because the full piece mix was used before, without even acknowlegement, in Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's: (RFerz),N,(BWazir),Q,K,P. Period. There are no 6-point criteria. That's silly. There are not even so few as 16 or 36 factors on checklist in rating. Are there 100 factors? More like several hundred. Below 1/2 the LargeCVs, anyone can read Comments mostly 2003-2005 by 'GWD' evaluating in long-term survey. The deliberative criteria from value-statements already made about 300 Large and 100 other CVs are variously ad hoc, heuristic, eclectic. We reach into our toolbag on a case basis to show an honest appraisal. Piece-type density, piece density, power density, originality, complete Rules, extent of Drawishness, supporting problem themes, cultural resonances, no channelled openings, value-added. These Comments are conscientiously to reject JJoyce's doctrine of re-inventing the wheel -- directly related to likes of Latrunculi. Joyce has said for year that it is not so important whether a deviser recreates a form used before. To contrary, we think it is incumbent to make every effort to find all relevant prior art and meanwhile postpone publishing. Our position is supported by Fergus Duniho's 'Marshall' article, then directed at overuse of (RN) and (BN) without knowledge of prior uses. Altogether thus our opinion that bad precedent and example, for newcomers especially, this Latrunculi. That's all, not so big a deal. It does not criticize GGifford's adequate Chess work elsewhere, nor do we particularly reach out for agreement from the majority here(extreme minority elsewhere) propounding 'proliferation' as their ideal.
4 Armies. Each player controls two armies. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]'1ABCLargeCV' Wanting to re-connect with our LargeCV thread, suspended 2 1/2 years, when not Commenting at all, have to start somewhere. The previous Comment(Feb. 2005) notes about this 4-Armies, invented in 2000, that its Pawns are 'omni-orthogonal-directional', so even Pawns can be a symmetric piece with a little devising. While Legan, played at BrainKing, has a somewhat similar starting array with pieces cornered, the Pawns move diagonally and capture orthogonally there, Berolina-like. Clever, unusual win conditions in 4-Armies include getting your two Kings adjacent to each other. Nice game two-player not four-.
Disintegration Chess. Win by disintegrating 3 Kings and having 1 left. (5x9, Cells: 45) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Gilman's 'elegant shape of the board' is exactly the technique used in Horus' 7x7 with the same 4 corners removed and there also the central square making 44 squares for that Contest. Its co-entry Prisoner's Escape was a winner in 2004, but not Horus. Good art effects as usual.
Seirawan Chess. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]So, do Knights moving out first make better openings? It does not seem advantageous not to get (RN) and (BN) out pretty early. Maybe the effect over-all is to reduce the number of feasible openings, not increase them. In the video that came with it, Yasser Seirawan joked that it was hard to tell who was ahead at some points in the 6 or 12 simultaneous games being played. Speculate that they are not really much serious about Seirawan Chess but want to break into the possibility of altenatives. MWinther Commented, so I can say we think Bifurcation Pieces are better than more Marshalls and Cardinals, but since there are so many of them and not yet adapt to 80 or 100 squares, it is hard to be specific.
Falcon King Chess. A shortrange variant on an 8x8 board featuring a pair of royal Falcons.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You're welcome. I invented the Falcon in one fell swoop not even particularly thinking about Chess, in a conversation with a veterinarian friend of mine, Vera Cole, December 1992. Actually, I had four of the moves worked out (in different mathematical context) since January 1988 off and on and added the 'split block' two, perfecting the concept for Chess. Falcon is actually first of the (only)4 fundamental Chess pieces, because the other three can be derived from it(none of this Wazir-Ferz 'atom' stuff). Many of us started playing it immediately on 8x10 and by first of the year 1993, I was researching the prior art for a patent. We always thought in mid-1990's that Falcon substituted for Queen on 8x8 was as good as OrthoChess but no better. Give me some days to see what you have here, JJoyce, and expect evaluation.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.