Final Wars - Bughouse & Crazyhouse Variants
Sort:
final_wars wrote:
@HGMuller
1. You have made variants, refer to your profile.
2. You post many comments about variants on the chess960 forum.
3. You refer me to another website that is used by people like you that are still trying to invent a variant that is actually playable.
4. You still have not actually said a single direct word about my game.
And that last fact tells me a lot man.
I read your post about the variant you created "Werewolf Chess"
It was, how should I say this? an interesting read.
(1) Yes, so what?
(2) Yes, so what?
(3) Not quite right. I mentioned that most people that would be interested in your variant hang out on that website, playing the variants you are so condescending about, and not here. I had not realized that you consider people that play variants not invented by you beneath your dignity. It is of course understandable that you don't want to throw your pearls before moronic swines...
(4) What it should tell you is that your website probably did a poor job to get the message across concerning the merits of your variant. I remember having browsed it once, and found it pretty chaotic. I couldn't find a short and succinct rule description in a reasonable time, (but as my standards were shaped by the descriptions on chessvariants.org I might be overly demanding...), so I lost interest. From what I did understand, I probably would not like it anyway; it did not seem very innovative: just the same old boring ortho-chess pieces with different setup rules involving a lot of randomization. Not my kind of game at all, I am mainly interested in unorthodox pieces. So why bother?
I am pleased you found my Werewolf Chess posting an interesting read.
The description on chessvariants.org is actually even more interesting, because it contains an 'interactive diagram' where people can actually move the pieces around and see how they would be able to move in various positions.
You got that wrong as well. I don't really have an opinion of your game, because I really don't know enough to form one about it, because your presentation sucks. By reading more on chessvariants.org you could learn how to make a clear and to-the-point presentation of a Chess variant. But I understand you consider that beneath you.
If you say it was an interesting read, I of course believe you on your word. If you want to imply that it should have been evident to everyone from your posting history that most of your statements are nasty remarks... Well, that should worry you more than it worries me, right? I learned it is better to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than to convict them on a suspicion.
I am still a bit puzzled as to why you qualify the chess variants that people typically design on chessvariants.org as 'unplayable'. I could have understood if you found them 'uninteresting' or 'ugly', because those are subjective assessments based on taste, and always say more about the person making them than on the object of their judgement. Tastes (fortunately?) differ. But 'playability' seems an objective and testable measure. If we pass by on the tiny detail that flocks of people actually do play some of these variants, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider these variants (say Gothic Chess, Spartan Chess or Team-Mate Chess, to for definiteness) 'unplayable'?
Jan 4, 2016
0
#27
I don't think it was so much "I think your game sucks" as "it's not the sort of variant I'm interested in". And his variants aren't the sort you're interested in. So you have different tastes, nothing wrong with that.
"your website probably did a poor job to get the message across concerning the merits of your variant. I remember having browsed it once, and found it pretty chaotic. I couldn't find a short and succinct rule description in a reasonable time" I'm going to back up HGMuller on this. I eventually found rules under "Downloads". I would have expected them before all that stuff on the front page, or under "Playing Guide". If I was you, I would put the extended rules into their own page where they could be read without downloading, clearly labelled as "Rules". I would also add a compressed summary of the rules (with a link to the full rules) near the top of the front page, enough that the game concepts below will make some sense after reading it even if you haven't yet read the full rules. I would also consider moving the game concepts to a separate page. At the very least, rename the "Downloads" page to "Rules", or add a link at the top of the front page to download the rules. The website as it is currently probably puts off a lot of people from finding out what the game actually is all about. It very nearly did me.
P.S. I just noticed that you do say at the bottom of your introduction that the rules can be downloaded from the "Downloads" page. It's not very obvious though, HGMuller and I evidently both missed it.
Kingchess is NOT my variant. My variant is bughouse and kingchess hybrid!
I don't doubt for a minute that it must have been a tremendous effort to achieve all that. I know from experience that developing a good user interface takes many man years. But especially because you already invested so much in it, it would be a pity if it does not achieve the success it deserves, due to issues that could have been repaired with only a tiny fraction of the already invested effort. Like poor presentation in a place where the receptive audience would not find it.
As to chessvariants.org: of course there also is a lot of crap there. Not everyone is equally talented. Like always, when you go somewhere to learn by example you should pick out the good examples, and ignore the bad stuff. The point is that, unlike when you present your own designs, you are put in the position of a reader that knows nothing about the variant he is reading about. Which makes it very easy to separate the good from the bad, as the bad will simply not enlighten you, or require you to re-read it five times before you get it.
I once knew a butcher that was making exquisite sausages from selected thourough-bred deer. And it annoyed him that 90% of his customers were culinary barbarians that could not even taste the difference between what he sold and the filthy pork saugage from the hot-dog stand in the street if their life depended on it, also because of the large amount of ketchup they were drawning it in. So he moved to an atol in the pacific, where there were no such clods, (and no tomatoes), and said: "now the royals can come to enjoy my saugage".
His business did not become a success...
A can also add that in my observation it is an almost universal phenomenon that designers of Chess variants think their variant is the best invention since chocolate. But that their own opinion on this hardly ever correlates with the adoption of the variant by the population.
Jan 4, 2016
0
#32
I think you're maybe missing the point a bit. You think your game is good. I think your game is good. Your grandmasters think the game is good. HGMuller doesn't seem to have a strong opinion. But your game is likely to fail, not because it isn't quality, but because you aren't making it very accessible to the people who would make it a success. The point of posting at chessvariants.com is not that you think it's a great site full of quality games. You think most of them are junk and I'd bet anything you like that you're right. But that's where you'll find people like you for whom regular chess has become boring, who are looking for something new, the kind of people who if they try your game and think it good would become the start of your game's fanbase, and would help to publicize it further. And I understand being very reluctant to modify your website after all the work you've put into it, but right now, if someone stumbles across it, there's enough variants out there that if it's not easy to see what's going on they probably decide this one isn't worth their time and move on to something else. You want to make it easy to get an idea of how it works, so that they look at it and think "hey, that's interesting!" and want to find out more. Right now you aren't doing that.
TheronG12 expresses it very well. I am sure I would think your game is better than Chess960, because on my personal appreciation scale Chess960 is about the most uninteresting and unimaginative variant there is. (Actually I do not even consider it a variant.) So that doesn't prove a whole lot. But my personal fascination with Chess variants is mainly in unorthodox pieces, to see what they can do, and determine their value compared to the orthodox pieces. And I do not even enjoy playing them myself, my hobby is developing artificial intelligences that could play them. So you should not really care much about my opinion; I am not in your target group.
Some musings about opening theory: I don't think opening theory is bad per se. It is just bad when it gets out of hand in a game where the initial position lies so deep within the draw zone that a good opening preparation guarantees you a draw. I don't think that people complain much about opening theory in Shogi, for example, where draws are virtually non-existent. I would go so far as to say that many people like opening theory, because it provides an easy initial way to improve your results in the game, by just memorizing a few opening lines and potential pitfalls, where other basic skills are not so easily trained. So I never considered it a large drawback when a novel variant starts from a fixed opening position. It allows people that start playing it the thrill of discovery of what's good and what they should avoid, immediately rewarded by better results against opponents that have not yet discovered it. So it provides an initial attraction, and gets a burden only after the game has been played hundreds of times by thousands of people, and got 'analyzed to death'.
If you want to 'publish' your program on the internet you'd better do it in such a way that people will actually find it. Otherwise you might as well print it on toilet paper and hang it in your bathroom. What do you expect people that are bored with orthodox Chess and want to find an alternative for it would type to their search machine? Would they start with final+wars? Fat chance...
When I go to Google and search for "chess variant", guess which links I find at the top. There are even links to posts on this forum that rank pretty high. But I could not find links to any post of you, here. Or to your website.
Good joke!
[COMMENT DELETED]
HGMuller wrote:
TheronG12 expresses it very well. I am sure I would think your game is better than Chess960, because on my personal appreciation scale Chess960 is about the most uninteresting and unimaginative variant there is. (Actually I do not even consider it a variant.) So that doesn't prove a whole lot. But my personal fascination with Chess variants is mainly in unorthodox pieces, to see what they can do, and determine their value compared to the orthodox pieces. And I do not even enjoy playing them myself, my hobby is developing artificial intelligences that could play them. So you should not really care much about my opinion; I am not in your target group.
Some musings about opening theory: I don't think opening theory is bad per se. It is just bad when it gets out of hand in a game where the initial position lies so deep within the draw zone that a good opening preparation guarantees you a draw. I don't think that people complain much about opening theory in Shogi, for example, where draws are virtually non-existent. I would go so far as to say that many people like opening theory, because it provides an easy initial way to improve your results in the game, by just memorizing a few opening lines and potential pitfalls, where other basic skills are not so easily trained. So I never considered it a large drawback when a novel variant starts from a fixed opening position. It allows people that start playing it the thrill of discovery of what's good and what they should avoid, immediately rewarded by better results against opponents that have not yet discovered it. So it provides an initial attraction, and gets a burden only after the game has been played hundreds of times by thousands of people, and got 'analyzed to death'.
Interesting points that you make here! Yes, I feel too that opening theory has definitely helped the traditional chess as a facinating game that people get devoted to it and study it, make many books about different openings etc. It's just that at the current age and time, the opening preparation has advanced to levels which kills a lot of the enjoyment of the game at the highest level. But this level of knowledge isn't acquired for almost any chess players, it's just too much work. It still just feels stupid for all the chess fans that some of those top player games against each other are decided by some home preparation study. I also enjoyed immensely the recent chess960 tournament with top players, which felt like it brought the creativity back to the game, all it needed was this simple and "bad" variant to make the game very enjoyable to watch and full of creativity again, also the top players liked it more.
@HGMuller
You have often responded with a "yes but, no but" remark.
Funny thing is that you have never actually said a single word about my game.
But you always have a lot to say about everything else.
I will not use that website that you mentioned.
Regards
Warlord
Final Wars
Well, in responses to others you did not seem a guy that does appreciate friendly advice, let alone what I would say about it.
It is of course entirely up to you to decide whether you want to profit from advice or not. But complaining that you don't catch anything when you fish in the wrong pond doesn't make much sense, and complaining when people point out the pond with the fish even less.