[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Lasswitz's Universal Library (1901) settles on 100 different characters and each volume 40 lines per page, 50 characters per line etc.: 10^6 characters per volume. We want to express in ''print'' everything which can ever be said, be it scientific or metaphysical. How many volumes are required? In the Library, Lasswitz asserts, are the lost works of Tacitus and all the future works of everybody as well. One volume has the ''space repeated one million times.'' Another goes that way until one 'a' at the end of line 40, page 500. The CV counterpart might be Large one-dimensional Chess with one shared royal Alfil. In 13th Century, Lullus' device used concentric rings, to be turned to bring inscribed words into new arrangements: Blood is *blue* *green* *purple* *red*. Other investigators followed. Giordano Bruno, Athanasius Kirchner, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz's calculating machine, reducing the problem, performed addition, division, roots, exhibited at London in 1763. Kempelen's chess-playing 'automaton' Turk, invented 1769, debuted at London 1783. [See previous here] Symbolic logic, combinatorics, game theory, computer algorithms. No infinity. Instead, perfectly finite number whether volumes, game Rules-sets, languages, within certain defined parameters only so many possible arrangements. Variously, according to aspects and whether we count books or sheets: as many as 10^2000000 (Books) or as few as 25^1000 (Sheets). Herewith strict 500 pages or equivalent, although notionally a Variant could postulate 501 pages. A fortiori, within hundred-square space or less there can be only finite Rules-sets likewise because they one and all are circumscribed or subsumed within finite wording and characters. [Source: ''Postscript to 'The Universal Library' '' by Willy Ley]
Pick the Piece Big Chess. In this customizable game, players decide on the pieces to fill two empty slots and those to be dropped during play. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This Comment is to tidy up USP5690334 from year 1997 through year 2017. Gilman reminded me by today's Comment at Complete Permutation Chess. Gilman's AOF1 was objectionable for changing the board size on the fly after posting it June 2007, as if poorly thought out. No one claims probably that any AOF is tantamount to Falcon invention [on second thought, still somewhat uncertain, because rereading Comments at AOF year 2007, not sure yet of having nailed down the piece mix]. As Gilman notes, he is welcome to use Falcon even on 8x10, 10x10 with leapers or other exotics, in principle: the claims of the Patent were designed for such experimentation. The 'Poor' here is for the unwanted Preset with two Falcons Daniel puts up 23.April.2008, not for PtPBC itself. When Abdul-Rahman Sabahi made Presets for 'Several FC Presets' in 2007, we were in consultation, unlike Daniel. Though short couple of Falcons, Daniel's Preset is covered by USP5690334 by two legal principles, the simpler one of which is Doctrine of Equivalents. Just Google 'Doctrine Equivalents' for more information. This Comment suffices to indicate that in future such use of 1 or 2 Falcons only on 8x10 and 9x10 and 10x10 and larger is part of the protected Falcon invention. Daniel can keep it with the understanding.
(It is bad form to Rate one's own article for any reason. That was one small agreement even prolificists had with ordinary CV fans.) The Preset with Falcons is still up at 23.April.2008 Comment and so yesterday's Comment is still relevant -- that by Doctrine Equivalents it falls under the Patent. Daniel means to say ''now-irrelevant'' as if he had removed it already. The Preset is not bothersome and we approved it. That was the point, to keep the Patents and Copyrights tidy. New piece of ('Korean Elephant' + 'Knight') would not be ''multi-path.'' See article ''Multi-path Chess Pieces.'' That piece, taking Daniel's wording for latest Preset, would be instead simple compound. Multi-pathers and compounds are of course worlds apart, as CV analysis has matured. In 22.April.2008 Comment here, as elsewhere, is explanation why Falcon subsumes also-patented-in-effect ''Bison,'' never used in CV before our use in 1992. Bison thus is special-case Falcon for intellectual property purposes. For example, anyone can use Falcon-Bison on 8x8 and in such as Gilman's conceptions with exotics like long-range leapers, including AOF1. Actually in fact, we just as soon Daniel leave the Falcon-PtPBC Preset since having now analyzed the subject a little here. We shall respond to Joyce's Comment of this thread, touching as it does on proliferation and manners, and need to find right place to do so (away from insignificant PtPBC).
Gnu. Simple game featuring the Gnu as promotee. (5x10, Cells: 50) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Very few have 50 - 59 squares like Simplified Chess.
Panal: a hexagonal chess. A double-royal piece variant on a 61-hex board. (Cells: 61) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]61 spaces is closer to 56 (7x8) than 50 is.
Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent 60 squares only from 2002.
Dou Shou Qi: The Battle of Animals - The Jungle Game. Simulated conflict between animal kingdoms. (7x9, Cells: 63) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
What is wrong with Shou Dou Qi?. Comments on the rules of Shou Dou Qi - the Animal Game.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rare 63 squares, the same one. This clarifies Rules and Strategy of that last one 7x9 Shou Dou Qi. Some ''modern capitalist games have rules which allow an easy drawing strategy. It means that the authors made a mistake or that the games were not meant to be played by truly intelligent people.'' The critique here, in what Panther! maintains, is that Shou Dou Qi is indeed a Draw best play ''but much more complicated than claimed by Mallet and Bodlaender.''
Templar Chess. 
Features the unorthodox Templar on a board with eight extra squares. (8x10, Cells: 72) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Templar is Betza triple (Ferz + Dabbabah + Alfil), but not quite because of only sliding to Alfil (3,3). Jeremy Good named the regular one (F+D+A).
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]H.G. Muller says today ''8x10 are rapidly becoming more popular with engine programmers.'' It is ironic that only one 8x10 board appears in the many hundred diagrams altogether in D. Pritchard's original fifteen-year-old 1994 'Encyclopedia CVs'. The one 8x10 there is on or about page 203. Yet '8x10' should have been self-evident as the correct expansion of played-out standard 8x8, since this H.R. Capablanca, expert Mad Queen player for what it is worth, had it almost 100 years ago now with reuse of the intuitive, albeit awkward and unbalancing, old Carrera Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN). Or put it favourably that our Capablanca orthodox grandmaster was unusually prescient for such olden time between the world wars, not himself to survive World War II era, some would say for his own excesses in lifestyle, dead for sixty-six years now. Would Capa still espouse his tweak of Carrera/Bird, or would he fall for some more recent ''prolificist'' extravaganza? As starter, probably he would agree there are no replacements for the F.I.D.E. 8x8 formula with 9 or more ranks. And very recent smaller boards as 7x8 are clear worsenings. Still plausible are the right-fit 2,3, or 4 new pieces on 8x12, set up like mediaeval Courier Chess. At least Jose Raul would recognize that by next milestone year 2100, there can surely be no more interest in intermediate Mad Queen than in Shatranj itself. Counting predecessor form the one reigned from circa 600-1500, the other 1500-2000. Not many Shatranj players around by JRC's day, or even Philidor's, or likely even Carrera's.
Spartan Skaki. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is this a CV? Only one piece-type, stones. No, two, the marked one is King. No problem, CV it is, not Go variant. Or if it is Go variant, where are the other hundreds of Go variants by just royalizing one or two Stones and then diversifying a few, or many, pieces out of some of the others? Here ''all stones move the same''; hey we can do better or more than that in this uncluttered field.
H.G.Muller's Point ''1) Move one piece at a time to an empty cell'' is violated, as he recognizes can happen in coherent Chess-like game, by Witch in Jacks & Witches, for one example. Witch drags another piece with it without capturing. ''Witch does not kill,'' say Fourriere's particular Rules there. So up to two pieces move when Witch moves. Points ''2) through 6)'' are each more readily and frequently violated than Point 1), as Muller would recognize. Here are exceptions to them: 2) Ultima Withdrawer, Coordinator 3) Maxima's other win condition 4) Battle Chieftain's one piece-type 5) Gilman's ''Pawnless'' ones 6) Rococo Cannon Pawn. Each of the 6) points could list 100 easily, so maybe definitions not that useful anymore. In fact, probably majority of CVs violate more than 1 of the points -- thus making them not CVs strictly by Muller's statement -- depending on more precise honed meaning of ''very close to a common variant.'' Here in CVPage ''very close to a common variant'' even controversially, though inconsistently, excludes different starting arrays.
Typhoon. Variant on 12 by 12 board with many different pieces. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]From decade ago year 1999 the entry says , ''anything worth doing is worth overdoing.'' Here are at least 75 piece-types well-defined in one game. Centaur is Betza triple (N,F,W). Zig is (W,D + more). Zag is (F,A + more). Dayrider is (A,D + more). Dervish is (D,A + more). Lioness is precisely (A,D,F,W,N) using all the Betza atoms. Goat is (D,F latter weakened not to capture). Marquis is (W,N). Missionary is (W,F,A latter weakened to Bishop-like). Like but unlike Zig, Parrot is (W,D + more). Priest is (F,N). Like but unlike Zag, Raven is (F,A + more). Sorcerer, like Missionary above, is (W,F,A weakened the same and then enhanced unlike Missionary). Squirrel is (D,N,A) as well-used. To name a few thus is to anticipate many dozen copycats in the following Aughts.
Jupiter. Huge chess variant on 16 by 16 board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In follow-up to Typhoon, Adrian King adds in year 2001 Dervish (A,D), Go Away (W,F + more), Blue Gecko (W,F + more differently), Drunk Elephant (F,A capture only,N,W move only). Also Blind Tiger (F,W move only,N capture only,D), Kamikaze (W,D,A), to name a few.
Scheherazade. Pieces may combine with other pieces to form combination pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]''Passing powers around'' is referred to in Comments of Joyce and Smith at Extreme 2D Chess now. This forgotten game in 1999 relays powers at option like later Delegating Chess(2002) of Neto. Scheherazade piece disappears, and the power remains, when the effect is chosen, unlike Delegating's. A zillion extreme Variants on a theme. Duniho copies this type of effect later too, but also there are even precedents in 'ECV', as if reading were a privilege.
Gess is billed as a Chess/Go variant and there are no royal pieces. Player wins by destroying a certain position, namely a ring. So the ''most complete answer'' of David Howe is not the final word and actually inadequate, those 9 points unsatisfactory. What is a CV anyway? A perennial question to ask. The particular CVPage ethos is rather that it is an art form. That is their functional definition of CV: art form. After all, most variant themes that come up, Mutators or new piece-types as one will, have ''been thrashed out before,'' in fact again and again and again within CVPage. Heck, keep them coming and once in a while there is a new idea. In Howe's list of 9, look at point 8, for no hidden information as one criterion. Kriegspiel has hidden information, and everyone agrees that is vintage, even standard chess-form, having found place throughout the literature.
Taikyoku Shogi. Extremely large shogi variant. (36x36, Cells: 1296) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Here are over 250 piece-types within one game for your new combinations. Taikyoku Shogi has more pieces than Mujotai Shogi. Are any of them worth a second look? [Follow-up below brackets] Treasure Turtle (233 last) is (D+W+F) in Western terms.
Howe's 9 points have at point 8 the criterion for no hidden information. Long-well-regarded 110-year-old Kriegspiel features hidden information. So Howe's list is just starting point at best or at worst idiosyncratic, as most any attempt at definition. // ''Art form'' means here not to be played, as CVs were classically intended before CVPage came along, but instead to be admired. Such ''art for art's sake'' is pointless ethos.
Megachess. Played on 6 boards arranged in a 2 by 3 grid. (24x16, Cells: 384) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Never Commented, well at least in the system since 2003, Megachess determines how many pieces player moves uniquely. ''You can make as many moves on your turn as you have Kings.'' There are six Kings per side. Since Push-Pull by any piece can cause two to move, as many as 12 pieces may move on a turn. However, if having but one King later in the score, maximum is two, the piece moved and any (same-side only) it pushes or pulls.
10x8 Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks Jose for the correct date of public disclosure of invention 1996, rather than 1992 as first private play -- for Falcon Chess. I think specific board sizes are about the best categorization possible at this point. Not the only one of course, but one place to start. For example, all the 11x10's, all the 16x16's, all the 7x8's -- only one so far of the latter; get to work, prolificists. Because ridiculously anymore (in one convenient anomaly), old Editors Quintanilla, Aronson, Duniho would have little more than a clue about ongoing content of the site. You know, such recent content as Calvinball, or ''piece values by entire configurations rather than single piece,'' or one-piece-type Spartan Skaki. Not the sort of material to win over wide converts. Of course any of those specific Chess experts, used as examples, could catch up on the material, given enough time, even lacking any willful organization or evaluation. My article ''Multi-path Chess Pieces'' in 2004 likewise tries to organize that important field, as Carillo's pictorial here organizes somewhat evolution of 8x10's and their further offshooting.
Taikyoku Shogi. Extremely large shogi variant. (36x36, Cells: 1296) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The promotees here, numbering over 100, are particularly under-utilized elsewhere. CV Prolificists wanting to enlarge portfolios, we may not have stressed enough that here are over 250 piece-types, ready-made and well-defined, many never before used in other than large and very large Shogis, as Taikyoku Shogi. Why not incorporate these within 8x8, 8x10, 10x10 pairwise taking mixes of specific quartets, quintets, to balance the sides, both across and along, of starting arrays symmetrically. Many tens of thousands of new games would easily become available. Like Frank Truelove's piece list of several thousand pieces, those defined in Prichard's 'ECV' 1994 and Dickens' 'Guide to Fairy Chess' 1967, this article too by Umebayashi and Smith should become standard fare for your building blocks -- way beyond the Betza atoms five.
We thought, well great, here is some original topical Chess material for once, instead of CVPage esoterica or the standard columns and blogs promoting dead or dying FIDE Chess, owned by Computer. But wait, it is not Mike Henroid's weekly column but the Bridge(!) column by Jared Johnson next to it 25.May.2008 with the interesting content in local paper. Writes Bridge expert Johnson, ''Both chess and bridge are great games, but interest in top-flight chess seems to be waning for one major reason. Most Chess games among experts result in draws -- and that's boring. You rarely have ties in bridge. .... Whereas Chess has just two opponents facing each other, a bridge event can have dozens or hundreds of pairs, so no one is playing for a Draw. Another problem with Chess is that the standard range of opening moves has become so thoroughly analyzed and predictable, you just don't get much excitement. Not so at Bridge. You get the occasional dull deal, but the next hand might be seven hearts, six clubs and 17 high card points. If they really do want to rejuvenate Chess, some new approaches are needed. Computers have already beaten world champions at Chess. The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is so much harder to program with all the hidden variables. Knowing that a machine can beat a man has been one more blow to Chess. At Bridge the humans are still on top. .... Meanwhile, Bridge players will pick up their next hand with fair confidence that most of the time the complete deal will be something they've never seen before. And there will be a winner. And a loser.''
I am not sure about full aspect of the two comments. I played occasionally in Duplicate Bridge tournaments as undergrad at Harvard in our Winthrop House Dining Room. Would that change the test with computers, Duplicate all playing same hands, unlike Contract? How could Johnson be so far off? Johnson's column is on Duplicate, and actually the sentence is the only one I lopped off last words: ''The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is so much harder to program with all the hidden variables and psychological factors.'' -- J.J. 25.May.2008. Psychological factors at Duplicate in long tournament, Computer is not yet so advanced maybe to play without human intervening on behalf. Our task though is to ask, is it not terrible problem that most of our 3000 Chess games, with programming attention, Computer can rise soon to the top; so why not start re-designing to deal with that some way? [The same Wikipedia article GG reads also says ''In comparison to computer Chess, computer Bridge is in its infancy. The question whether Bridge-playing programs will reach world-class levels in foreseeable future is not easy to answer.'' Whereas Chess programs the likes of Kramnik already will not play anymore; so it is matter of emphasis, the Bridge 360-385 loss being probably sound defeat, and Johnson's wording about right that ''Computer not close'' to be any time soon.]
Megachess. Played on 6 boards arranged in a 2 by 3 grid. (24x16, Cells: 384) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]And call the six Kings ''Kasparov,'' Karpov, Kramnik, Kamsky, Karjakin, and Korchnoi in memoriam of a great game owned now by Computer. Six-move, five moves, four moves of course are not so different in conception from Double Move, Progressive and their kin, working backwards.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.