[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Let me start off by confessing that I never learned how to mate with King and Archbishop versus King. I kept stalemating Zillions the one time I tried. Substitute a Unicorn (B+NN) for the Archbishop and I can more-or-less manage.
But after 100 years have passed, I would expect the Raumschach page to have a brief outline of how to force mate with King and three Rooks. Or is it four Rooks? Who is actually playing 3D chess variants nowadays? Does anyone still read Jim Aikin's page on the 4x4x4x4 game Chesseract?
This topic is meant as a discussion of what we do, and why. My first post gave my basic position on my designs, which is that I [try to] design playable variants, and I enjoy playing all of them. Not everybody has the same motives as I. There are a number of games that are truly beautiful and will be played rarely, if at all. I'll mention one or two. This discussion started with 'Prince' by Gavin Smith. It's a fine game, an intellectual tour-de-force, and barely playable because it's so complex. The author speaks to this. But some of what we do is art, and there's nothing wrong with that. As a work of art, 'Salmon P. Chess' by Dale Holmes is a masterpiece. The game is brilliant in scope, very well thought out, and effectively unplayable. It is art. It is beautiful. Both of these games are a credit to the CV site; we are all better off for having them here. [And I hope both gentlemen will forgive me for dragging them into this discussion, but I think their games illustrate perfectly what I am trying to say here. If I presume too much of either of you gentlemen, please let me know, and I will edit this comment appropriately.]
3 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.