[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Fair enough, you get the rating. Your piece is a good one. Being symmetric gives it a versatility that the alternative claimant to the name Falcon (which in deference to your patent I have not used under that name) lacks. Without your Falcon I'd have had to resort to a piece that would take a lot more explaining on the board on which I finally settled. As it happens I have no further plans to use your Falcon but I can see how you, or someone else with your permission, could use it in all sorts of geometries.
[Edit Bracketed within 2 days]Who would want to 'use it in all sorts of geometries'? What an ethos! It is like sifting all the Sahara Desert sand in order to find a handful of lions. Firstly, there are already 91.5 Trillion Falcon Chess variates: see article of that name. There could be a trillion Rococos and a trillion Quintessentials, Maximas, or Eight Stones. Where is the discrimination? Still, allowing room for experimenting, we deliberately excluded 8x8 and under from the Falcon invention; so develop 8x8 Bifocal(2004) and 7x7 Horus(2004). Would it be worthwhile presently for variety, to work up some of Gilman '155 games', and others also, into either Problem Themes, or Mates in Two or Three or Four, or Opening Theory, or Game Scores(even annotated), or Poetry, or developing further the Fiction in some of already-established Themes? Is there one particular, out of Gilman 'inventions' (which is to say, initial positions), or others' worth presenting to contemporary Chess masters or perhaps local clubs for scrutiny? Or, are they all 'art work'(Lavieri's term) not even to be played? It appears what several 'prolific' designers are mostly doing over and over is setting up one piece-mix array after another, and always it was hard to be original there. That is why David Pritchard himself says in Introduction to 1994 ECV about CVs that 'most of them should be consigned to oblivion'--stated before proliferation. So, Gilman's 1(AltOrth) for 155 is only a few times below average, persistence pays. [Meaning still lots of 'Excellents' in CVPage, say, 1 in 30 of 3000 games throughout equals 100 Rococo-level 'Excellents'] Try one of our recent immobilized Problem Themes for a change, then there is excuse at any rate not to play.
What is the value of the Falcon, relative to other pieces in Falcon Chess?
Falcon 6.5, Rook 5.0, Bishop 3.1, Knight 3.0, Queen 8.6, Pawn 1.1 until there are fewer than 75% pieces & Pawns on board, when Falcon fluctuates, as it says in this article under 'Strategy'. 1996 estimate here was 9.0, 7.0, and Pawn 1.2. 'RFNB...' should have same piece values.
Fergus Duniho comments below that 'grandmasters who had extensive knowledge of opening theory' were interested in adding marshall and cardinal to 8 x 10. Fergus is right that they were likely trying to escape their narrow professional circuit into new frontiers, but the marshall and cardinal had been around for hundreds of years and different size boards, such as Turkish / Indian Great Chess were created to explore these possibilities. We are still exploring them today.
On an 8 x 10 capablanca random board, a number of new asymmetries emerge, distancing it from FIDE Chess. The bishop becomes more powerful and the power of the marshall over the archbishop is great.
What is the Falcon piece? Simply put: One of the greatest innovations to come along in hundreds of years for a board with a length of 8 squares in particular. The Falcon family of pieces perfectly complements the linear sliders as you can tell from this wonderful diagram George Duke created to illustrate their range:
Q D D D D Q D D D D Q
D Q S S S Q S S S Q D
D S Q F F Q F F Q S D
D S F Q N Q N Q F S D
D S F N Q Q Q N F S D
Q Q Q Q Q X Q Q Q Q Q
D S F N Q Q Q N F S D
D S F Q N Q N Q F S D
D S Q F F Q F F Q S D
D Q S S S Q S S S Q D
Q D D D D Q D D D D Q
One of the great charms of FIDE Chess is the competition between the bishop and the knight, which are roughly of equal value on that board. Or maybe precisely. In fact, IM Larry Kaufman assigns them the exact same value (3 1/4 compared to 5 for rook, 9 3/4 for queen) and argues this: 'In other words, an unpaired bishop and knight are of equal value (within 1/50 of a pawn, statistically meaningless), so positional considerations (such as open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better.'
This is charming because the bishop and the knight are two such disparate pieces and that there should be an underlying symmetry behind this polarity is surprising. There may not exist a single piece in Falcon Chess with equivalent value to the falcon, but when playing with the Falcon piece, one feels a similar pleasing feeling of polarity, of playing with a unique piece that can be competitive among disparate pieces. So it amounts to a great contribution.
The Falcon multi-path piece is one elegant solution to a problem implicit in one of Betza's observations: 'The second rule is that a forward leap which is half or more the height of the board is too dangerous. For example, a piece combining the (0,3) and (0,4) leaps would win heavy material in just a few moves from the opening position.'
Fergus Duniho does not note this but I think George Duke has a leg up on the great Jose Raul Capablanca and eccentric Henry Edward Bird when it comes to designing chess variants. The latter two gentlemen are rightly credited as great classical chess players, but unlike George Duke, they were not chess variant experts and they contributed very little original to the development of chess variants, except mainly to lend their prestige to a lazily constructed 8 x 10 variant that was hundreds of years old. [Added note: This may have been unfair. H. E. Bird probably was something of a chess variant expert. He was certainly a historian of chess development. ]
Usually, unprotected pawns are seen as a liability. In Falcon Chess, they serve to permit the dynamic Falcon piece to play a more interesting part in the opening.
I rate this game excellent and applaud George Duke's initiative in bringing the Falcon piece forward. It has enriched our chess variants world considerably. It is one of the few variants I consider enjoyable enough to be well worthy of serious study. It marks George Duke as one of the greatest contemporary chess variant inventors.
I agree that Falcon Chess is an excellent variant. The move of the Falcon is very interesting and provides for both strategic and tactical ideas. I have been playing a game with George and quite enjoy it (although I have not attended to my game recently!). I just wish that the Falcon piece could be used more frequently by other chess variant inventors (Switching Falcon Chess or Takeover Falcon Chess -- a 'takeover' Falcon, wow! -- anyone?).
Thanks a lot, Jeremy, for analysis of highlights of the Falcon model of coherent piece development. Remarkable the co-equality of Knight and Bishop on 8x8! Yet it breaks down by 9x8 or 8x9 where B>N, and smaller would be N>B. So, probably it is coincidental (like Sun-Earth-Moon 400 factor?). Competing philosophy is expressed by Larry Smith 22.March.04 under 'Game Design' thread: 'If a game was populated with pieces of near equal value, the advantage of exchange might not be significant. But if the pieces were of various degrees of value, enough to clearly differentiate them, exchanges would hold the potential of an advantage. Then a player can make sacrifices to obtain positional advantage.' There we developed formula M = 3.5Zt/(P(1-G)), where P = Power Density(Betza), G = Smith's Exchange Gradient[quantified by myself], t = piece-type density, and Z = Board Size in number of squares, used to calculate M, game length(number of moves expected average). [Mike Nelson named what Betza defined 'Power Density']
As a US citizen, I find US patents extremely offensive- beyond whatever merits a game may possess in of itself.
Falcon Chess patent process started in 1992 before Chess Variant Page existed. So, it is more logical for us to disparage CVPage's coming into existence and accompanying proliferation of mediocre games' (mixed in with some excellent ones to be sure) slightly watering down significance of time-tested games patents worldwide, going back to Scrabble, Monopoly and many others. However, courtesy of all Editors Howe, Aronson, Quintanilla, Good, Fourriere the last year and a half especially has enabled us to find niches where I contribute within their 'multiform ethos' as much or more than anyone else, whilst simultaneously preserving Patent USP5690334(and other foreign) in sure status of full extended rights.
I was about to say the same thing in substance, Reinhard Scharnagl, when Derek Nalls only 8 days ago insulted Falcon Chess (USP5690334), by starting with 'As a USA citizen...' in Comment this thread. Well, great, I said here inside what Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calls 'the Empire', that leaves me off the hook, since nobody cares what someone thinks whose foremost identity is 'American citizen' in times of loss of civil liberties in North America. However, pertinently also, there may be an association between lack of freedom and development of Chess and other intellectual pursuits, as Soviet Union Chess peaks most difficult political years there up to its end late 1980's. [Hey, see also the muted radicalism, in next to last poem, 27 December 2006, 'Chess Morality XIX: Shadow-Chess' -- substantially after Goethe -- and Venus' lines 35-36: 'Let's pray that ethos dies 'In Gold They Trust'/ And scatter to high heaven their Fool's dust'.]
Have you thought about this preset: frnbqkbnrfpppppppppp60PPPPPPPPPPFRNBQKBNRF Notice that all the pawns are protected. The 10X10 also is a lot more roomier for the extra pair of pieces.
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.
I am adding words in [boldface] to correct some statements made on this page:
It is not possible [in general] to achieve checkmate with king and one falcon against the enemy king. The situation is [not] akin to the inability of king to [force] mate with only two knights or only one bishop against king. However, the rook and king together of course can checkmate opponent's king. Therefore, the rook becomes generally more valuable than the falcon in the end game. It is important to approach the end game bearing in mind this relative weakness of the falcon. For example, one must have at least king, falcon, and some one other piece to have [more than] a [slim] chance for checkmate against lone king.
Five months ago this comment was posted: 1. c2-c4 1... n b8-c6 2. c4-c5 2... n c6-e5 3. c5-c6 3... n e5-g6 4. c6-b7 // PxP 4... n i8-h6 5. b7-a8; Q-a8 I just ran this sample game to verify that Pawns promote to Queens (and presumably other pieces) in this rules enforcing preset. Clicking on the [Rules] button takes me to the 'Falcon Chess' page, where a 'Find promo' command results in several comments of a general nature and one example of a Pawn promoting to a Falcon. I am confused - in a game of 'Falcon Chess 100' between the same two players, George Duke writes: // Right, in our 80-square FC, promotion only to RNBF, // because R or F is interesting equal choice, depending on // position. Here FC100 Queen promotion too if reaching that // farther zone(Rules).
Right, that paragraph could be improved, let's see. That was written in late 1996, when copyright mailed in USA, and not revised for the CVP 2000 article. If one King and Falcon stand on own back rank, and other King at its bank rank, with no other pieces on board, no checkmate is possible with good play. So, the situation is like K + 2N. You must be talking about a set-up position after a capture, that I will check later whether it works, and so sometimes(rarely) K+F beats lone K. (Therefore, your 'NOT') If *NOT* belongs because of that, the sentence would be best omitted so not to stretch a comparison. Let us check, thanks, David. All the [additions] after that one are more precise, except maybe *slim*: the other piece could be Rook one supposes. /// Second topic: At the first of two games played with Antoine Fourriere around April 2006, when I was not Commenting here, the official Rule, being in transition, in fact, became promotion to RNBF only. Earlier games with RLavieri et al. we had Queen promotion. Now it stays as no Queen Promotion on 8x10(and 10x10). So, hopefully rule-enforcement can be changed. Likewise, individuals can agree to allow it in a case, and we do not mind. As officially as it can yet be, free castling requires King 2+ and promotion to RNBF and array RNFBQKBFNR. That's it for any ambiguity. The last of the three is the one most likely still to change, if there were a consensus for some alternative, but hopefully we are near the (more or less) final Set of Rules. (If by mutual agreement other array is used now in GCTournament, that's fine, as I read such options being taken for other selections played)
That's right. For example, if King must capture at a8(a Queen or Rook) and King is at c7 and Falcon can move to d6, Checkmate. We did not think of that properly yet. Thanks. So, since there are no such cases in OrthoChess with two Knights, the original sentence is wrong. And David Paulowich's revision is correct with *not*-- becoming different sentence that still can remain to distinguish Falcon's keeping slight value edge over those others(B or 2N) in (remotely-)possible end game. Thanks for pointing out couple of necessary revisions.
Talking about chess variants is more complicated than playing them! Back on [2006-04-03] Joost Brugh commented on this page that there is no forced mate, in general, with Wildebeest + King against lone King. But I suspect that such endgames usually lead to a stalemate victory in Wildebeest Chess.
Falcon Chess has the opposite problem: I have not seen anyone state that King and Falcon can force a lone King into a corner. But consider the following endgame position, which could arise after Black has promoted a Pawn to a Rook, or perhaps captured with his Rook:
White K(b2) and Black K(a4), R(a1), F(h7). After 1.Kxa1 Kb3 2.Kb1, the Falcon moves h7-e6-g3-d4-c1-f2-c4 checkmate.
Touche. So, it is more complicated, as there are thus more cases where K+F can force mate. Also it has not been determined whether even two Falcons can always can force mate, but I think it is so many moves they are not a resign position. These have not been studied in detail yet.
Thanks again, Jeremy, on long Comment 17.July.2007 (six months ago exactly Robert Fischer's death now). It may have been changed in one phrase. Namely, ''one of the greatest innovations to come along in hundreds of years'' originally was roughly ''the greatest Chess innovation in 400 years.'' Latter version would key off Carrera's two irregular pieces RN and BN around 1617. Minor matter of rewording for more political correctness. The reason for going to this article now is recent misguided Comment on piece values, implying that Knights automatically do not hold up well against stronger pieces. Piece values are never the whole story. A Chess Rules-set done right is like trying to solve series of simultaneous equations. Variables include number of piece-types, power density, initial set-ups (See today's FRC ideas below), complementarity. By valuations alone, Falcon Chess estimates have Knight weakest: Pawn 1.1, Knight 3.0, Bishop 3.1, Rook 5.0, Falcon 6.0, Queen 8.5. Yet three moves Knight i1-h3, h3-i5, i5-h7 is Fool's Mate in Falcon OrthoChess array RNBF... Because of technically-weakest Knights' effectiveness here, other starting arrays are under consideration as standard: RNFB..., FRNB...
Pardon the plug Mr. Duke, but I want to say your Falcon is welcome in IAGO Chess, if you want to play around with it there.
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jun 27, 2008 10:19 AM UTC:Poor ★I think this page does a very poor job in describing Falcon Chess compared to the compact description other CVs get on these pages. And this for addition of only a single new piece, for which the move rules could have been described (within the context of what can be supposed common background knowledge for visitors of these pages) with the in a single sentence: 'The Falcon is a lame (1,3)+(2,3) compound leaper, which follows any of the three shortest paths to its desination consisting of orthogonal and diagonal steps, which can be blocked on any square it has to pass over to reach its destination.' That, plus possibly a diagram of the Falcon moves and a diagram of the array should have been sufficient. As it is now, I could not even find the rules for promotion amongst the landslide of superfluous description. Note that my rating only applies to the page, not to the game. I haven't formed an opinion on that yet, it could be the greatest game in the World for all I know. I have a question, though: What exactly does the patent cover? As a layman in the field of law, I associate patents with material object which I cannot manufacture and sell without a license. Rules for a Chess variant are not objects, though. So which of the following actions would be considered infringements on the Falcon patent, if performed without licensing: 1) I play a game of Falcon Chess at home 2) I publish on the internet the PGN of a Falcon Chess game I played at home 3) I write a computer program that plays Falcon Chess, and let it play in my home 4) I publish on the internet the games this program played 5) I conduct a Falcon Chess tournament with this engine in various incarnations as participant, and make it available for life viewing on the internet 6) I post my Falcon-Chess capable engine for free download on my website 7) I post the source code of that engine for free download on my website 8) I sell the engine as an executable file 9) I sell a staunton-style piece set with 10 Pawns, orthodox Chess men, and two additional, bird-like pieces 10) I sell a set of small wooden statues, looking like owls, falcons, elephants and lions, plus some staunton-style pawns, plus a 10x8 board. ????????? And more specifically: would it require a license to equip my engine Joker80 to play Falcon Chess (next to Janus, Capablanca and CRC) and post it on the internet for free download? If so, could such a license be granted, and what would be the conditions?
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jun 27, 2008 01:27 PM UTC:On a more chessic note: Why are you saying the Falcon does not have mating potential? I ran a tablebase for the Bison (a non-lame (1,3)+(2,3) compound leaper), and the KBiK ending on 8x8 is generally won (100.00% with wtm, 80% with btm including King captures, longest mate 27 moves). I think it should make no difference that the Falcon, unlike the Bison, is lame: to block any Falcon move, at least 2 obstacles are needed, and this is very unlikely to ever occur with only two other pieces (the Kings) on the board. In the mating sequence I looked at, the Bison is mainly shutting in the bare King from open space, the attacking King closing off another direction. I also cannot imagine that expanding the board size from 8x8 to 10x8 would make any difference. Usually it is the narrowest dimension that counts. So I really think King+Falcon vs King is a totally won end-game on 10x8, although I could not exactly say in how many moves.
This article is written for several perusals and assumes increasing degrees of familiarity for the importance of the topic, the total reformulation of Chess to its full, correct embodiment. We doubt Muller can even state, or visualize -- at present early stage for him, evidently, from his limited expressed understanding -- that there are 12 movement patterns or that there are always three-fold ways. Another 'Poor' will not knock us down a peg for our other contributions, since we reject the general values here. This first Comment may be followed up by another even weeks later on topic already covered by doing full research of available information. Patenting requires extensive specifics, hence the broad wording in article, carried over from Patent write-ups. No doubt we are partly at fault for not yet giving Jeremy Good request for elementary Rules-set. Evidently, most do not even understand the move with this style, judging by GC games played, and my often having to correct play (except for example Fourriere and Carlos who caught on). Falcon Chess has far and away the most 'Poor's of any CV, bar none. It continues from Editor Cazaux (any Editor may not have rated Poor anywhere else), to 'Fischer', to Nalls, to Gifford, now to Muller, and several others. How can there be any respect on our part when it is obvious Falcon is ''the missing piece,'' every other piece is not such, and the Ratings are the worst of any other. Constructively, the 'Poor's help us winnow out those we will not cooperate with in future reductions to practice. For example, we shall never sanction any Zillions application or association, no exceptions. When Zillions came on board about 2000, CVPage values plummetted. This particular article is almost exact copy of the first Copyright mailed to USA office, happening to be 1996, the same year Patent Application also was sent in. Sorry, it does not meet the formulaic worn descriptions we get the last ten years under CVPage auspices that we refuse to participate in. Editor Aronson calls Falcon ''the complement'' of Bishop, Knight, Rook. Simple as that. Editor Good calls Falcon ''the greatest innovation in Chess to come along in four hundred years....'' (Comment 17.7.2007 later revised to ''one of the gr...'') We may, or may not, get to patenting questions in follow-up that common courtesy would ordinarily require to answer. Since there is taboo to say anything good about my invention, more likely I shall continue role as analyst predominantly, contemptuous of the prevailing ethos. We are more interested, as usual, in wide evaluation and critique of others' work, in order to be fully competent later to thwart, or prosecute, any copycats of Falcon use. There are other Patents in works than USP5690334 and copyrights as intellectual property covering it. Any infringement or plagiarism will be held to account, whereever it occurs. Until there is some acceptance of evolutionary specifics in Chess, and desire to see it take place, the Falcon team response is duly limited like this.
Suppose Damiel's '***' is an expletive, which is not surprising given CVPage standards vis-a-vis Falcon for one. Daniel's Titan Chess is so embarrassingly terrible, I stopped perusing its Rules and let time run out at recent GC game. I actually joined their potluck tournament, and was subjected to Titan (follow-up critique there later) because my name alone was mentioned for invitee and politely accepted. How to continue constructive discussion of what GM and World Champion Emanuel Lasker calls ''Reform in Chess'' in article 90 years ago? Sometimes one piece makes all the difference. In fact, usually so, Chess being so nuanced. When they add Modern Queen (RB) around 1500, somehow Centaur(BN) or Champion(RN) just would not have done. Those two were named by Carrera 100 years later, but surely mediaeval ingenuity could conceive them and rejected them, in favour of our Queen. Now Pritchard says in 'ECV' Intro that OrthoChess with (RN) might have worked just as well. Most would disagree, so indeed there are schools of thought, and the Queen won out, becoming essential. Likewise, used in one or two Problems in obscure publication in 1970's, Bison (leaper 1,3 plus 2,3) is so inherently flawed, ruining Knights and Pawns, as never to have been put into a CV. Then Falcon Chess, seeing some potential, in December 1992 reduces the same-destination theoretical construct to practice in perfected form, no longer the ridiculous problem-theme leaper. Please remember the Patent started with Inventor's notebook, each page cosigned from 1992. Are we to continue to be lampooned for taking steps nearly 20 years ago? It just shows the widespread ignorance of those belligerent opponents of intellectual property protection. Actually, the first precedent for Falcon, co-equal with Bishop, Knight, and Rook, exists long ago in mediaeval German Gala -- for another Comment. // Now most Patents are not complex Rube Goldberg contrivances (see cartoons), but slight key alterations of prior art with inventiveness. An important field will have Patents themselves not that different from one another. The only difference might be in molarity or degree of heating or cooling or one or two genes varying in biochemistry.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I've been looking at the starting setup of Falcon Chess, and I haven't managed to get a satisfactory setup on the 10x8 board where all pawns are protected. And where Bishops don't face Rooks. This is the major annoyance to me in most 10x8 boards, because it prevents a fianchetto. The only setup I found, which satisfied this condition, FRNBQKBNRF, Cheops Falcon Chess, I think, has a major problem. The Falcon pawns are only protected by Knights (which are bound to move,) and they're originally attacked by Bishops, which can easily lose a Pawn and force the Rook to move (prevent castling) from the get-going. So I thought of considering other boards than the 10x8. [[ Edit: After some examining, my favorite setup on the normal 10x8 board is RFNBQKBNFR . Even though the Falcon Pawns are unprotected, they are not vulnerable to quick attacks, and easily protectable after natural Knight moves. However, a player should be careful while advancing them because they expose the Rooks. What Mr George Duke calls Tamplars' Falcon Chess, RBFNKQNFBR, is also good. However, since Bishops and Knights are not on adjacent squares you can easily forget about Standard Chess opening theory, no Ruy Lopez, for example. Also, Bishops face each other in this setup, so it's difficult to avoid early exchanges which might lead to some kind of awkward openings. But I believe it's perfectly playable.]] One idea is the 8x8 board, in the setup I used for Energizer Chess. r f b q k b f r p p p n n p p p - - * p p * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * P P * - - P P P N N P P P R F B Q K B F R Castling is as in normal chess. The squares marked by * may or may not contain pawns. Or the same setup on a 8x10 board. Just add two ranks in the middle. Pawns move as in Wildebeest chess. -- Another idea is the board used by Templar Chess. f - - f r n b q k b n r p p p p p p p p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P R N B Q K B N R F - - F A crazy piece to add here would be R. Wayne Schimttberger's (excuse my spelling,) Airplane. The board and setup I propose are, A is for Airplane: a f f a r n b q k b n r p p p p p p p p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P R N B Q K B N R A F F A I am not sure this will be a workable setup, though. It's also possible to add here Capablanca's two pieces. A is for Archbishop, M is for Marshal. m k q a r f n b b n f r p p p p p p p p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P R F N B B N F R A Q K M No castling on these boards is allowed. A promotion square is where the pawns can't move. OR you can use a similar promotion rule to the one in Falcon Chess 100. -- Or the nice old 10x10 board. r n b f q k f b n r p p p p p p p p p p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P P R N B F Q K F B N R Pawns move as in Wildebeest Chess. Here, it would take the Knight for ever to go checkmate the King, making the journey worthless. I am sure, though, Mr Duke has the 10x10 board in his notes. I wonder why he didn't use it. -- Btw, to Jeremy Good. The Coloring of the Falcon Chess 100 preset is, in a word, awful. I have created another preset. If you like it, I hope you post it instead of the current preset: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DFalcon+Chess+100%26settings%3Ddefault