Comments by tommy
The FIDE Laws Of Chess. The official rules of Chess from the World Chess Federation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Golem Chess. Variant where the Queen is replaced by the Golem, a piece that must be captured twice to remove it from play. (8x8, Cells: 64) [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]i can concur with Michael Nelson's second message (dated 12/04/04). in particular i am in agreement with his third point. i believe it is immoral to choke the natural evolution of chess (and variants thereof) by monopolising new aspects of it. i myself have ideas for chess variants and chess rule modifications but would prefer it if other people were allowed to modify and improve my ideas.
the falcon may indeed be original and the basis of the patent, but is it morally fair that nobody else is allowed to attempt to improve falcon chess or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece?
i would like to know how profitable falcon chess is as an enterprise. i would also like to know why the designer bought the patent. is it so that nobody else may attempt to improve falcon chess (or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece)? is the name 'falcon' protected? for example, may i invent another different piece and call it a falcon? or, am i allowed to alter the name and/or appearance of the current falcon piece found in falcon chess? are any monopolies moral?
if falcon chess is a profitable enterprise then it might be worth considering how it could be made more popular if other people were allowed to promote it. if it were made more popular, would it not then increase the value of the falcon chess enterprise? having a monopoly on the falcon piece and falcon chess in general does introduce a choking aspect with regards to the popularity and future of the game. it is this then that leads me to believe that chess (variant) patents are bought for personal financial reasons only. and it is this that most people consider to be immoral and/or abhorent.
Crazyhouse. A two-player version of Bughouse. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]i do play crazyhouse at scheming mind. i have also begun playing 'dark crazyhouse' there and i think it is probably the only site which does it. i have just stumbled upon a problem after taking an opponents pawn. because i now have a piece to drop, i can see all the empty squares, and thus calculate my opponents moves. whereas he is still playing in the dark. i would like to know what is the best solution for this: 1. only allow drops to squares which i can see, or, 2. similar to kriegspiel, commit to moves when dropping to dark squares. if the square is empty, the move is played. if it isn't empty then you get to try again. the first option is less crazy than crazyhouse, and the second option is less dark than dark chess. is there a satisfactory compromise?
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]i am one who is particularly offended by chess variant patents. i will tell you why. but firstly, the patent for falcon chess does not worry me as much as other patents because i cannot see that the falcon piece is really any good. to me it looks like somebody wanted to own a patent and then set about achieving it, rather than somebody invented a great game and recognized that it needed legal protection. i may be wrong, but i cannot see how there could be a sufficient demand for this game to warrant any legal protection, and so any patent for falcon chess looks to me like a 'bad business investment'.
i myself have many ideas for chess variants. sometimes my designs will be too flawed to pursue, but sometimes i will think of something good. i currently have one variant which i am very excited about and i would like to tell the world and get it play-tested. but unfortunately, recent months have taught me that there are business-minded vultures in the chess community who seek to exploit chess for anything they can get. this is why i will keep my best variant a secret. i want it to be public domain, because i am not an american capitalist. i just want people to play my game and for a few people to remember i introduced it. but i fear that i now need to cover every base. for example, to stop somebody tweaking my game in a minor way, i need to somehow account for all possible combinations of starting set-ups and rules. this represents millions of possible permutations. the credibility of my game is virtually destroyed by such an action. but the worst thing is that i will need to ensure my game is given wholly into the public domain. i wish this was easy and that i could talk about it openly. if somebody suggests an improvement to my game, i would not mind at all. but if somebody found an improvement and claimed sole inventorship over my game, i would obviously feel somewhat aggrieved. like Carrera would feel if he knew about gothic chess.
why are chess patents allowed? unfortunately they do exist and unfortunatley they weren't bought in order to help promote those respective variants, or chess itself, but to line the pockets of american capitalists. these individuals are choking the future of chess evolution in my opinion. i think the most insulting thing about people who own chess patents is that they all claim to have made something better than chess, and do not recognize previous similar variants. gothic chess for example was undoubtedly influenced by the Carrera family of variants, but nowhere in the patent document could i find the relevant acknowledgements. i thought that the 'background of the invention' would have mentioned something significant, but it doesn't. why is that? i fear it is because the 'inventor' did not wish to tell the patent reviewers how unoriginal his game is. and instead, heavily implied that he invented the archbishop and chancellor pieces.
i know this message won't get posted, but i thought i would try anyway. i have had good correspondence with Fergus in the past and i trust his ability to decide what should be published on his website or not. if Fergus would like me to write a better essay about chess patent immorality, then i would be willing to do so. i understand that this site was not made to discuss patent morality issues, but it is one of the most popular discussions for some variants and i feel it's a subject which needs to be addressed. i may write my own chess variants site one day, and if i do i would not include any patented chess variants, no matter how good they are. i would not wish to promote any variants which were invented for the purposes of raising money for greedy entrepreneurs. people who probably have little genuine interest in any other chess variants.
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating][This comment is hidden pending review. It will eventually be deleted or displayed.]
Falcon Chess 100. Falcon Chess played on an expanded board of a 100 squares with special Pawn rules. (12x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating][This comment is hidden pending review. It will eventually be deleted or displayed.]
The FIDE Laws Of Chess. The official rules of Chess from the World Chess Federation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Shrink Chess. The board is shrinking. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]i had a very similar idea a few months ago, and am a little disappointed to learn i wasn't the first to think of this. i was inspired by a game called russian square, in which you must push coloured blocks around in a square (or rectangle) until a whole file or rank is one colour. it then disappears. one problem with your shrink chess idea that hasn't been addressed here is that of internal files and ranks. my idea only allows external files and ranks to disappear. i have 3 reasons for this. first of all, the game of chess begins with 4 empty internal ranks. under your rules, 3 of them would disappear after white's first move. secondly, discovered check would sometimes happen if an internal line disappeared. this is not neccessarily a good or bad thing, but i don't like it. thirdly, if an internal line disappears, the checkered colouring of the board would be violated. it's easy enough to just change the colours on one half of the board in order to restore order, but nevertheless sometimes this will result in both the bishops for one (or both) player(s) being on the same colour square. not great. apart from 'russian chess' or 'russian square chess' i didn't really have a satisfactory name for my variation of shrink chess, so you can call it shrink chess 2 if you like. unlike shrink chess (1) a separate castling rule is not needed. only emptied external lines disappear. pawns only being able to double step before any rows/lines(?) are removed satisfies me greatly. particularly since, (in my opinion) the first line to go will do so sometime towards the end of the middlegame. however, i'm not at all keen on the idea of white being able to choose the promotion of black's pawns (and vice versa). however, if my opponent does send my pawn to the last rank, i could then choose a piece which would check his king, and then take it with my move. i expect there is a satisfactory compromise here. i just have not thought what it is yet. maybe you can only choose a piece which doesn't check the opponents king. also, that gives a bit of the promotion power to the opponent, instead of all the power, as in shrink chess (1). for example, 'my opponent can promote a pawn on their next move, if so he will probably choose a queen. however, if i promote it and have my king in line with it, i can ensure he only gets a minor piece for it.' i quite like that.
Slide-shuffle. Variation of Shuffle Chess with special castling. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]better than poor, not quite as good as good. i don't see this variant to be a completely satisfactory solution. castling with non-rooks?! (very) long-castling to a corner from the other corner defies the logic of the original reason for castling (eg, to get the king safe). why have castling at all? to quote the author '1. Standard shuffle-chess, without castling, leaves out an exciting element.' personally i have never experienced the 'excitement' of castling. finally, i don't think you need to have 2880 set ups, since 1440 will be mirror images of the other 1440. you don't have this in fischer random chess, because of the unsymmetrical castling found there. the only reason to keep 2880 set-ups is if you expect to play with a significant left-hand/right-hand bias.
Chess/Xianqi/Shogi Tournament #1. Enter the First Chess/Xiangqi/Shogi Game Courier Tournament![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Just a quick note to let you know why I am not making any moves right now. I'm currently away from home doing sciency stuff at a Synchrotron. I'm also having to brush up on my understanding of Shogi and Xianqi, whenever I can. The main problem I think I will have is recognizing the pieces from the Japanese/Chinese symbols. Can someone tell me if there are piece sets I can use, which look more like Western Chess pieces? I hope my time does not run out for any of the games. I'll be back home on wednesday. I hope I will give my Shogi/Xianqi opponents a decent challenge.
13 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.