[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Titan Chess. 
Chess featuring dozenal board and seven diverse new pieces with multiple capture mechanisms and movement modes. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nah. I am not answering these fully in atmospheres of hostility. Of course there are grey areas. Please do not use Falcon at Joker or anywhere else without talking to us. All you have to do is enter Game Courier, get emails and start conversation. There are individuals, friends and associates there I email five years running, such as Lavieri. (In those days there were no Ratings. Ratings have become another farce, because one person might play in 30 seconds, whilst Fourriere says sometimes he takes 30 minutes a move.) Falcon's ''91.5 Trillion...'' has on the order of 10^50 different Rules sets, all inclusively patented. Most emphasize no Queen promotion: Daniel and Carlos are playing now with Queen promotion. Incidentally, the possibility of promotion to Falcon always differentiates from OrthoChess, regardless whether Falcons get captured early. Daniel has been playing well and removed Falcons in Carlos game, reverting to OrthoChess strategy. The library of OrthoChess goes to tens of thousands of volumes. My brief comments cover 0.00001% at most of the broad topic of fully-realized Chess with all four potential compounds, Falcon included. Hey, thanks for interest, Muller. And still very seriously, drop posturing and please discuss specifics of endgames etc. of less general interest elsewhere sometime as suggested. // Charles, I got cut off from Computer to correct details of last Comment including 'I's and do so now. The 'We' refers to Falcon partners in Colorado USA when that applies. Keep on laughing within your laughable games whilst the faces on the horizon are not even smiling.
Janggi - 장기 - Korean Chess. The variant of chess played in Korea. (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for attention, Charles. Daniel expresses interesting opinions here. Daniel has missed prior topics showing USA, Canadian, UK, and French chess patents back to 1870's. Scrabble and Monopoly are originally patented. Verbosity like ''insult to rich history of Chess'' is so much uninformed babble. Precedents for Falcon include, besides this Changgi, Gala (13th Century), Novo Chess (1930's), problem piece Bison (1970's). There are two Camel-Bison-Knight compounds in 'ECV', one of course Maus' Cavalry Chess(1920's). There are about 6 and about 15 respectively of Knight-Zebra and Knight-Camel. All these I (hey the team WE) made USA Patent & Trademark Office aware of: fortunately Pritchard's book had just come out. The clauses ''anyone can...'' or ''one can easily add...'' or words to that effect are commonly applied to Patents jealously later. Why be devoting minds to this if it has no merit? A great idea is obvious after the fact, as Jeremy Good defends the Falcon innovation. Please ask Fourriere or Carlos about game play with three-path Falcon.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hopefully, Falcon topic will be talked out for rest of summer soon. I told Jeremy Good 1 1/2 years ago Falcon in CVPage is ''a lost cause,'' because of differing values, or CVPage refusal to evaluate at all objectively. It is interesting Charles Daniel dislikes Falcon. Fine. It grows on you. Gradually you realize Falcon is correct, and your piece is incorrect. It takes a while. Stephen Stockman, as excellent a player as Daniel, dislikes Falcon too. They do not ruffle any feathers, and you will see no effect on our(my) ongoing topics. Compare qualities of Comments and Rating evaluations sometime, or get an impartial outsider to do so. I think we do a good job. Stockman calls, in keeping with CVPage-inspired etiquette, vehemently Falcon ''a stupid piece,'' when I beat him. That is his thank you for the game played. Hey, it was already becoming competitive ambiance. See completed log of Duke-Stockman. Now ask Fourrier or Carlos or Good about Falcon play. Their expected public silence is understandable, in face of perennial Internet problem of lowering standards and belligerence when a Comment system is open to all, but WE happen to know what THEY think.
Thanks again for interest. We'll find a way to contact privately. I recommend to get on Game Courier, Muller, the Play system here. Nothing to it. You may be just the candidate to develop this worldwide. Let's discuss it privately anytime after you study it some weeks, and get your understanding up. You would not expect to learn a programming language in one sit-down. Take your time for something more important than Fortran or C++. (Only half-kidding, but I cannot spell out policy in rough atmosphere.) And at Game Courier, Muller, you can get the upper hand among prospective programmers. Thanks again. -- Barring that, Muller, let me look at Joker or whatever engine and respond later.
Who would waste time on Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN) anymore? No one is interested. Knight was not meant to be compounded but must always stand alone. We will call attention to where we prove the inefficacy of those two under this Chessboard Math and Game Design. Please check tomorrow, and you will relieve addiction to Capablanca misadventures Chancellor and Archbishop, whatever they may be called in this or that embodiment. We announced solemnly and theatrically their demise and RIP in January, venerable Centaur and Champion, and sure enough the next day Bobby Fischer died -- after the fact. Check it out.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is my favourite game to play. I lost my first Rococo game, maybe 19-1-2 now to Charles Daniel. Congratulations. Actually, I think I had good continuation if, instead of moving Long Leaper one step, I simply moved Swapper to the square adjacent to King. There continues ongoing threat to knock off opponent's Advancer with Chameleon. And if attack on own King, Swapper just then swaps King to back rank. But the nature of Game Courier games is unrealistic being 24-48 hour delays between moves. And I lost interest focussed on commenting over here. I intend to try to keep the highest Ratings at Rococo and Falcon Chess, the games I decided to concentrate on. Rococo's great concept, Cannon Pawns, amazingly has had limited spillover to other CVs. Only mediocre Fugue comes to mind as employing Cannon Pawn. It must be on account of respect for Cannon Pawn. Rococo is one of only 5 or 10 CVs deserving own tournament or even entire website. Rococo would probably be the only one developed under CVPage auspices worthy of those entitlements. Over-all very low productivity in fully Excellent CVs within CVPage (disregarding courtesy 'Excellents') hegemony, but Rococo is one real stand-out. The other extreme novelty of Rococo would be the border squares, accessible only in capture, the Swapper's swap also counted as capture.
Altair. Altair is a modern game with an oriental flavor. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]No. Also, notice that the Diamond Warrior has not the *H*.
Wikipedia: ''In May 2006 a record-shattering 517 move endgame was announced. Mark Bourzutchky found it using a program written by Yakov Konoval. Black's first move is 1 ...Rd7+ and White wins the Rook in 517 moves.'' Black R-b7; B-b3; K-f4; N-g5. White Kd2; Qh1; Nh2. They are still finding these things after 512 years. What's the rush?
Schoolbook. 8x10 chess with the rook + knight and bishop + knight pieces added. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Trenholme writes that Castling comes from Duniho's Grotesque. Actually, Grotesque copies it from couple of others. I think the only example in Pritchard 'ECV' is worded ''two, three or four steps'' on 12x12; so that would not be the same, since there is potential fifth step on 12x12. ''Two or more'' may well have originated in couple of the 20 Falcon patents claims 1996. Once I searched and never found such ''free castling'' method even in other patents. At any rate, Grotesque copies the second of two alternatives in Falcon claims. Duniho is completely entitled to adopt it. Now there are a dozen Rules-sets using it in CVPage. At Falcon Chess we changed in 2006 official Rules to ''two or more'' from one or more. So, I would word FC free castling: ''Provided no check or passing through check or prior move of Rook or King, and no intervening piece, King moves two or more toward Rook, and Rook over King to the adjacent square.'' Now Chess Cafe Tim Harding wrote ''Bring Back Free Castling'' about 1998. That Italian free castling of 18th-19th centuries was different, because King could end at h1 and Rook at e1 on 8x8, for example, among other possibilities. We take that name ''free castling'' and use it to describe several castling methods on 10-wide without one fixed destination. Grotesque, Schoolbook and Falcon are all the same now.
Space Chess Photos. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Rules appear within the article at the link. Also see CVPage Index, under ''Boards with unusual shape,'' then ''3d'' for over 100 Rules-sets of 3-d, including Star Trek and Raumschach. While in Cleveland, you should visit the Cleveland Public Library. The John G. White Chess collection there is largest in the world and has here and there proposals to alter Chess Rules for researcher to find. Over the years, serious reforms have been suggested from Alexandre in 1820's, Bird 1870's, Lasker in 1910's, Capablanca 1920's, Gabriel Maura's Modern 1960's, Fischer 1990's. Twists and tweaks of OrthoChess, like more recent Seirawan Chess and other lesser lights, used to be ''variants'' not the crazy wild-eyed stuff we mostly get in 2000's ad infinitum. (Hey I would not review them if I did not enjoy even the worst of them -- unlike most not CVPage prolificists.)
Schoolbook. 8x10 chess with the rook + knight and bishop + knight pieces added. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Muller was asking about Falcon Chess in Joker or Smirf; I forget the exact question and am more interested in relooking at Jeliss and Trenholme articles this week. Just as Greg Strong was about to finish Falcon Chess for ChessV, it is fine to put Falcon in engine free of charge throughout years 2008, 2009 and 2010 to play, so long as strictly not commercial (unlike standards-degrading Zillions). Please inform what is going on, and put the patent #5690334 two or more times about the Rules or Board, since ultimately we would like to market Falcon material too. It may be coincidence, but Strong took offense at our critique of his grotesque game ''Catalysm'' and never returns since. [Muller rates 'Poor' over at Falcon Chess and says he has not decided whether it is good. If it is deemed not good, please do not include FC, but something not commercial like that can be up to you during 2008-2010.]
Scharnagl> Falcon 5690334 covers all 453,600 arrays 8x10, 9x10, 10x10 and larger. There is no distinction. We recommend from playtesting RNBFQK..., RNFBQK..., RFNBQK..., FBRNQKNRBF, FRNBQK..., BRNQFFK..., RNBQFFK... Notice Rooks are always a1, b1, or c1, and King within d1 to g1. Most would not want Randomized all possibilites. You are right, it is different when Rooks are only two from King, but we recommend to avoid adjacent Rook and King. For Rook and King two apart, I will define ''free castling'' as ''not a1, not j1, and King must go at least two over, overtaking Rook if necessary or if K & R are within three.'' That means Kingside castling is fixed destination in three of the above. (Other CVs may vary.)
Symmetric Sissa problem. Problem based on an actual game.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Congratulations on presumed solution after 10 years. I added regionally-related Maura's Modern Chess to my other Comment, back 10, today. That is, the sequence Alexandre, Bird, Lasker, Capablanca, Maura, Fischer, (lesser lights Seirawan et al.), more or less (one could think of 6 or 12 more lesser lights according to opinion), should include Modern. Not that Modern's same-coloured Bishops are appealing to many, but the way Gabriel Maura presented it as solution or evolution ranks it with the main sequence of others. The list shows over 200 years the progressive urgency for change.
All the King's Men. Page describing variant chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Let's run through Jelliss. Under 'B' Bifurcating piece, Winther later develops many more of these after 2003. Jeliss' include Moose, bifurcating Grasshopper. T. R. Dawson's Grasshopper (1912) moves Queenlike and jumps to the next square, capturing or not: the jump is mandatory, and obviously own piece there would be illegal. Now Moose's same modality turns it 45 degrees: two possibilities essentially. To elucidate, from the opening at Queen spot on 8x8, as first move of game, Grasshopper may move over Pawn d1-b3, d1-d3, or d1-f3; whereas Moose instead may move d1-c3 or d1-e3. Neat. Thus Moose, unlike template Grasshopper, is multi-path, that is two-path, to its very closest squares (only); and original Grasshopper is stricty single-path to all its destinations. Jeliss has three more bifurcators, Asp, Eagle, and Sparrow we shall visit. And Winther has 30 or so more of these bifurcation pieces.
Bifurcating Eagle moves same-Grasshopper-like but turns immediately 90 degrees in the two alternatives: ''two'' makes it precisely the bifurcator that it is. Eagle then cannot move from the opening situated anywhere in back rank behind Pawns. At the d1 on 8x8 in place of Queen, Eagle must stay put at least until an adjacent Pawn has moved. If first 1) d2-d4 ... , then 2) Eagle d1-c4 or d1-e4 at choice become possible. // Next, Asp makes the full Grasshopper hop, then continues as Queen after 45 degree turn. So, if Asp begins Bishop-like, the continuation is Rook-like, and vice versa. It is not clear whether Asp can capture two pieces per turn, presumably not, and if an enemy sits at the ''Grasshopper-hop square,'' immediately beyond the piece (either colour) overleaped, the move is simply illegal. // Sure enough, bifurcating Sparrow makes the G-Hop and turns either (precisely two) way 135 degrees. At standard d1, that would entail d1-c2-c1, and such-like; and since you cannot capture your own Bishop, let alone King at also-reachable e1, Sparrow, like Eagle, has not the opening options of Moose, Asp (and Knight) and must also wait for developments.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Let's finish the A's. Italian alfieri and Spanish alfil show transit of Chess from India, where Sanskrit word for elephant corresponds, across Persia and Arabia. Sorrifully, one of the very last places Chess reached is Russia, hence its popularity. Chess pieces Alfil and Amazon are respectively too weak and too strong for most modern purposes. Amphibean is rather unnecessary tag, basically just meaning compound. Frog for example is Wazir plus Trebouchet (0,3), the latter component catalogued if not named by Charles Gilman now with my deliberately-archaic spelling. V.R. Parton's Anti-King Peter Aronson recycles in AntiKing Chess. Problem-theme arrow pieces gain extra strength, or offensive coverage, upon checking. To help out with example, Autohopper type of piece may be found in 1930's Chess-Battle out of precisely Russia, in its Cavalry unit. It just means Cavalry may overleap only friendly pieces. Antipodean piece, from British and German periodicals mid-20th century, to reappear at (4,4), could just as well go anywhere else by varying definition. How about Antipodean (7,7), disappearance and reappearance at (7,7) from one corner to another? And taking the whole 64 board of 8x8 squares along with it.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Suppose Rook is just unlimited-range orthogonal piece that can be blocked. What is most important is that there is one complement to RNB, dictating them, from which Rook, Knight, and Bishop derive, not vice versa. Coincidentally, ''Octopus'' is already-used and mentioned acceptable alternate name for the three-way three-path piece and is still okay too. Also Phoenix, Horus, Scorpion or other names. Muller's name for Centaur(BN) of Dancer would also aptly fit Falcon. The game is not so much ''Falcon Chess'' as ''Chess.'' Falcon and Octopus both look like Figure 19. Poetic reasons, Falcon now prevails, because of Sun(F) Falcon, Moon(P) Sheep, Mars (N) Horse, Mercury(B) Elephant, Jupiter(K) Lion, Venus (Queen) Hawk, Saturn(R) Serpent. See the tables at ChessboardMath that extend in from 2x7 or 3x7 to as many as 7x7 natural and cultural associations, the star cluster Pleiades seven, days of Week, Birds, Animals, Metals -- all lists of seven items matched with the seven natural Chess pieces. Mythological associations often resonate dually, so imagination connects easily Falcon and Octopus, as in Figure 19, movement patterns showing either tentacles or wings spread. [My 19.February,2008 Comment at Chessboard Math has many natural sevens(7's) including ''Falcon.'' ]
[Maybe Paulowich could explain again how to read Comments 26+ in threads, which is readily done in articles.] Mark Thompson's Tetrahedral Chess is on our recognized list at Chessboard Math. Here's a variant 3-D board also with 84 squares, now called Pyramid (another different 3d has name Pyramidal already). One block, or cell, sits centrally atop 3x3 cells, then 3x3 above 5x5, then 7x7. Four levels, or layers, each of 1, 9, 25, 49 cells respectively (=84). Connectivity is easier to visualize than Tetrahedral, and there are all the usual orthogonal, diagonal and triagonal directions of Raumschach (125 cubes, 1907). At the one-cell top level, a Rook has only one direction to move through, first 3x3, then 5x5, and in three steps to the very center of the bottom 7x7. Raumschach King at any corner has 7 cells to which to move, whereas Pyramid King, also omnidirectional, would have only four from the lower corners.
Tetrahedral Chess. Three dimensional variant with board in form of tetrahedron. (7x(), Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is the neatly-connected CV we recognize at Chessboard Math and that inspires our 84-cell variation, more or less from tetrahedral numbers Mark Thompson talks about here. Actually, there instead, square numbers 1 and 4 are also tetrahedral numbers, and the total 84 is tetrahedral number, also being 1+9+25+49, four levels.
Octahedral Chess. 3d-board in octahedral form. (9x(), Cells: 340) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]From 1996 this is like my idea at Chessboard Math for 1x1 over 3x3 over 5x5 over 7x7, all centered totalling 84 squares. Ward's Octahedral carries on the other way, and its 10x10 become too many. Octahedral would be pretty good with 2x2 over 4x4 over 6x6 over 8x8, totalling 120. Opposed to write-ups, we accept the Pyramid board-space that flashed across the mind as hybrid of Thompson's Tetrahedral and this Octahedral probably noticed then. xxx
Okay, thanks that works, and should be able to substitute for Chessboard Math in the code with Game Design or other one next time. 19.February.2008 here are the Falcon associations with Seven days, Seven Wonders, Falcon being the Pyramid, and the other mnemonic 'sevens'. 19.April.2008 is review of Mark Thompson's ''Defining the Abstract,'' the same author of 2002 Tetrahedral Chess.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The third section of article will not be used at all as is, of course, having served as attention-getter. Muller is first to find force of Falcon to corner to win, that Paulowitz and I questioned. Glad you find the Paulowitz example and my response. That's good, that Falcon wins, like Rook. No one programmed play of Falcon yet, so great, that we keep Falcon on par with Rook to the end, about which I was uncertain. //The first over-the-board play of Falcon was between Vera Cole and myself December 1992, and the same month another lady and gentleman became players. By 1994 still only two dozen had tried the Falcon move on 8x10, each signing non-disclosure agreement. I doubt whether more than 200 games were played in 1990's, but I experimented with board positions for the Mates in Two here. About 2000-2003 we played a lot in coffee shops, still no computer play. Games were usually decisive well before endgames. Once the board was deliberately angrily forcily overturned and all the pieces struck and strewn around a Denver, Colorado, cafe by Mladen, born at Yugoslavia, I believe Slovenia, when I checkmated with Falcon. The only ''computer play'' is human-human at Game Courier 2003-2008.
We list at other article the reformists Alexandre 1820's, Bird 1870's, Lasker 1910's, Capablanca 1920's, Maura 1960's, and Fischer 1990's. None of them can be said to have succeeded in their advocacy, but what did they do anyway? In particular, Lasker, why is second world champion on the list? It is easy to locate Alexandre as forerunner of Fischer in randomizing starting positions. With some conviction Bird and Capablanca of course reinvent Carrera for their times. Maura's Modern reaches somewhat across Latin America. What about Dr. Emanuel Lasker, mathematician, friend of Einstein? When Capablanca defeated Lasker to become third Champion, Capablanca tossed around one of his first ideas for reform. It was simply to reverse Bishop and Knight. Lasker then and earlier advocated scoring wins differently by type. ''In order to prevent the decay of chess by the frequent occurrence of drawn games finer nuances of difference of execution must show themselves in the result, and stalemates should be considered and counted in the estimating of scores for tournament purposes, wins by themselves to count less than enforced mates.'' --Lasker's idea summarized by Reti (Source: Richard Reti, 'Modern Ideas in Chess') The ironies are that some GMs, but not variantists, might know of Lasker's scoring proposals, and that today that is the extent of debate within OrthoChess circles, how to reward points differently -- the same topic Lasker brought up 90 years ago.
Brilliant. I remember well the analysis led by Irina Krush to determine each day's move against Gary. And it was close to the end in all aspects, often regarding what move to make, and also who had advantage, the World or Kasparov. What excitement to rush to Computer to see what the last move had been overnight! I am of opinion that Gary Gifford would defeat even most top-20 Grandmasters, for example, in CV of his choice with say 48-72 hours preparation for GM, or whoever, to learn Rules. And against the ''World'' is actually marginally easier opponent, it was speculated during the weeks of Kasparov Against the World, because of slight ''least common denominator factor'' for one consideration. So Gifford, or Fourriere, or Stockman would become slight favourite.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.