Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I added my contest comment right after George's comment here, and before I saw it. I like this idea, also. The wiki is a nice place to lay out something like this. Given the creative and competitive natures of many of us here, I should think a contest [or two] *and* this project could well cross-stimulate ideas. If there are a few people willing to try, we can put the framework together easily enough. Comments?

One part of George's comment bears directly on the proposed contest part of this idea, and that's length of game. That's not been something I've paid much [hah! any] attention to before. But he makes an excellent point; if FIDE chess lasted 200 turns/game, I doubt it would be as popular as it now is...

In my opinion, if we were going to make a new chess variant in a similar way, I think we could do in this way:

A) First, we choose the max amount of players in the variant.
The users give suggestions like: 2, 1, 4, 10...
Then players give ratings from 1 to 5 on each suggestion, and the one with the highest score wins.

B)Then we choose the possible amount of players that will be able to play the game.
Users will be able to give sugestions like, 2, 4, any odd number, any number higher than 2...
This amount need to include the number we got before, if the max number we got was 10, 10 players will need to be one of the possible amount of players in the game. In this case users will not be able to suggest something like 'any number from 2 to 8'.

C)Then after some suggestion wins we will choose the amount of squares on the board(s).
Player can give suggestions like 80, 84, any odd number between 60 and 80 (in the case of a variant with variable number of squares)..
Then the same voting process will happen.

D)Then we choose the amount of boards
Players give suggestions like 1, 2, any even number... and then we make the voting process. The sum of all boards squares need to fit in the suggestion we got before.

E)After that, players give suggestions how the board(s) will be and we vote.


F) Now we choose amount of pieces each player will have.
The suggestions can be 10, 20, a number from 8 to 16 (in the case of variable amount of pieces based on rules).

G) Then the amount of different pieces.
The is the max amount of different pieces the game will have. This doenst means the game will start with all those pieces. In a variant were players have 39 points to spend on different pieces, players will not start with all pieces.

H) How those pieces are (one piece type per voting turn).
Giving suggestions and voting one piece per turn is a good idea because we vote on next piece based on the other ones already voted.
But this voting process could be done in another way, on the first voting, players give pieces suggestion, only ONE piece suggestion per each suggestion a player make. Players vote on all pieces suggestions and then the most voted ones would be in the game.

I) Where those pieces will be (or if player will be able to choose their starting position, or if it will be random or semi-random) on the previously voted board.

J) Win/draw/loss condition.
Players would be able to suggest rules together with their win/draw/loss conditions, if those rules help the game.



Maybe, we could choose win condition before before we choose the pieces, so win condition would be at F, or even before we choose other stuff from the game. Or we could before making the game, vote if we would choose win condition first, if this would be the last thing or if we would choose the win condition before we choose the pieces.

I've noticed there is an error in thought on this 'rook camel' piece, probably confusion due to the name. It is said on the page though ...

'The Rook-Camel may move like a standard rook, sliding any number of clear spaces horizontally or vertically. Or the Rook-Camel may move like a non-leaping camel, sliding exactly two squares orthogonally followed by one diagonally without a leap.'

I don't know if I am missing something, but that description is not a rook camel lol, the 'camel' doesn't leap.

However, it's an interesting piece!!

Good catch, Christine. Also, here is something I wrote [2008-11-01] on George Duke's NextChess2 thread:

Regarding some recent comments: 'Super Chess' (two words) is part of a proprietary name used on the web page Cardinal Super Chess, which states: 'Because of the Cardinals' unique movement, a combination of a knight and a bishop, it gathers the initiative into one sweeping action.' This naturally leads to the mistaken conclusion that it is the usual B+N piece. But the second web page given for this commercial variant shows the move to be a non-leaping Camel. I once tested the piece on the applet provided and saw the program move a Bishop to block my Cardinal check.

Taking a trip on the WayBack Machine, I find the alternate name CSChess(c) - wouldn't a trademark make more sense than a copyright? Sad to say, the archived web pages have neither a movement diagram nor a playing applet.