Per page discussions (new threads)

Drafting Page

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:59:07 +0000

I believe it would be beneficial if we consider having the improvements fall under categories/components. To this end, I am proposing a few:
1. Having different classes of chess variants, as is seen in IAGO Chess System, with one of its purposes being to help provide a structured guiding of the evolution of the game:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste

2. Having different formations, that meet guidelines, as is seen here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmultipleformat

3. Categorizing a standard set of rules variations, in the form of mutators. JP Neto explores this here:
http://homepages.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/cv/mutators.htm

4. Standardize a list of the names of pieces that fit certain move types.

These are just a few. I am fairly certain some others have slipped my mind.

Shuuro

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:43:56 +0000

Hi, I'm Alberto from Italy. I'm a chess fan and I'm here because I'm trying to learn GAME Code and programming presets to create a Game Courier version for Shuuro (http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSshuuro). Here the rules in English. Now I'm at this point but I don't know how to create a random function to generate 2 plinths in each quadrant of 6X6 squares. Plinths are squares where only knights could go. I've read the Preset Primer (thank you very much Joe) but I've no idea. Could you please suggest me the best solution? Thank you. Alberto

WarGame

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:25:37 +0000

Like the idea, though I prefer Ancient to Modern.
Perhaps the range of piece types could be extended to encompass various epochs - sword and shield, pike and musket, rifle and cannon, lazers and robots?
Presumably the armies are chosen on some points system?
Were you thinking of using hexes for the playing area?

Any leader can issue orders but cannot itself move unless it is within range of a higher-level leader.
So the highest level leader cannot move?

Cheers
Graeme

Round 1

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:50:45 +0000

Thanks to the efforts of Carlos Carlos the tournament has started.

Good luck to all.

Named Games

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:40:31 +0000

We seem to have a nice range of games here. Is there anything that says we can't conduct a straw poll and discussion of the games? Is there a listed game that should go? Have we left out a game that absolutely has to be in? Are there any questions about any of the listed games? it's early, but a vigorous discussion might speed up the process; conversely, minimal or no discussion should indicate that the games as they are are acceptable, so we can start early. Moving right along… ;-)

Cell

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:51:42 +0000

I would slightly modify the definition to include multi-celled-size pieces. There are variants [and not just mine ;-) ] that have pieces which cover more than one cell. For example: Giant Chess

"Chess of Tomorrow" project. Who is interested?

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:27:15 +0000

Who is interested in working on a "Chess of Tomorrow" project. The idea here is to get variants integrated into the discussion of chess, and legitimize it. It is also meant to have solutions come up on how to do things. I would also recommend here that there be some documents that can be used, with a generous licensing agreement put around them, so it facilitates uses. This could take many forms. As an initial discussion point, I offer the IAGO Chess System:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste

I am up for changing the terms and conditions of it so it is more flexible to use, without losing that it will build communication rather than fragment, and people can use it for commercial purposes, such as bundling the rules in books they are working on or with pieces they sell. I definitely interested in having it changed and mutate it over time, as is best determined. It is meant to start with FIDE Chess also and provide a logical flow into variants. It is a starting point for the discussion, but not the only thing. It is meant in order to have variants taken seriously also, and legitimize tournaments in them, and give credibility to people who play variants.

So, to this end, I would want to see who else wants to get involved here. Please speak up on this. I would like to hear it. Please take this as not myself wanting to take things over, but the community to take ownership of the environment and help make it more reflective of their wishes.

To this end, I will look to push for ONE rule to be added to all future versions of chess. That rule states that your game equipment must map to your rules. Physical versions of future chess should not have people flipping rooks to make them into queens and so on. This is fine when you just have a queen. But what happens when you have new Capablanca pieces, exactly what does the rook represent? Do people want to codify that a flipped rook is a new wildcard piece that represents whatever people want it to be in the game? Fine, I would then ask that get put into the rules. I would like to add my take that this hole in normal chess rules is a barrier for adoption of variants. Here is a chance to have variant pieces get into chess, and the flip rook (not in the rules) is automatically set to a queen. Anyhow, that is my take on this. I would like others to speak up. And this is the point of the "Chess of Tomorrow" project. It isn't one person's voice, but what the community can agree to.