Chess vs Law

I am not a troll man.

I have noticed a pattern already, people have opinions about a lot of things but never do they say anything about the simple little rule at the start of the post (rule number 7 in my list)

The only 2 guys that stand out from the crowd are @notmtwain and @strangemover.

@notmtwain I have seen before, he sometimes hangs out on the Chess960 forum and I think he is a guy that will at least consider something before he makes up his mind.

@strangemover was very polite and just wanted to get a feel for the extent of the changes, I did answer his question even though it was a bit cryptic.

As for the rest of you, the usual comments from chess "experts"

The people that have looked at this thread but not commented are probably all naturally strong players, they look at that example at the start of this thread and may think, hmmm...

They know what is going on but say nothing

That rule has been part of my game for more than 6 months now and this is the first time that I have shown it to anybody, that's how long I kept it quite and I bear it in mind, along with the other rule changes, every time I play over grandmaster games.

I only disclosed that one specific rule so that strong players reading this thread will know that I am not a troll or what ever else.

It's delusional and narcissistic to feel that everyone reading but not commenting is on your side.  I have not commented until now, but I will be happy to shatter your illusions:

- The variant doesn't sound all that interesting, and anyone can claim to be a game designer.  Credentials, or GFTO.

- If you want to make any money, create something completely new.  Any variant of chess is a derivative work based on a public domain game, and much the same way Disney cannot exert any rights over the fable Snow White (only the likenesses of the Disney animation itself are protected), you will not be able to exert any control over your chess variant.  As it should be.  You are tweaking a game honed over more than a thousand years; there's nothing proprietary about your ideas.  What you have done is no different than the person who first decided that landing on Free Parking in Monopoly should behave differently by "house rule".

- Fischer's "game" had/has no more chances for being protected than yours will...if anything, FIDE probably waited until after his death to acknowledge the variant simply to spite him due to their differences over the years.  Nor does Seirawan Chess have any $$$ coming to it, either.

That's rule change number 7 in a list of 8 sorted from most important to least important, perhaps you missed that chess "expert" or perhaps you just fail to see the big picture,

How old is the ep rule in chess? several centuries at least, too lazy to do wiki, and I just published a viable alternative to it.

Did you at least play over a few grandmaster games to evaluate the idea before typing your worthless comment, no of course you did not.

I still have my doubts about you.

I won't go into the details but you know what I am talking about.

If you really are being genuine about how you feel about the rule then thank you.

Would you be prepared to play a test game with this rule on the chess960 forum.

You do that a lot on that forum in any case and you would be one of the first to try it.

A few points:

I will not play but I will observe.

Standard chess rules without chess ep rule.

Add blocking pawn rule from above.

Do not add any other rules or pieces (you know what I am talking about)

It is not about extra pieces, ok?

Q: When will I release more details?

A: When the chess establishment changes it's attitude.

Good luck 

Hi cave man dude

Cool

Hey @bum_tickler hows it going man.

I remember you being very rude to me a while back, was that a year or 2 years ago, who cares.

Remember what I said back then: Tickler by name, tickler by nature.

"The variant doesn't sound all that interesting"

You have only seen one rule, a minor rule, in a long list and you form an opinion on that?

Your worthless opinion has been discarded without consideration.

I see, you are the new sockpuppet of someone I have already taken to task previously.  That makes a lot of sense.  I notice you could not address anything else I said.  Nice fake cover reason , but one rule or twenty, is it really going to make any difference?   You aren't showing anything else not to protect your IP, but to cover your lack of creativity and understanding of actual game design.

I would be happy to see you prove me wrong and produce a fun and logically consistent new chess variant...but we both know that's never going to happen.  Not.  Ever.

Someone as inwardly turned as you is pretty much incapable of making something fun and engaging for a broad spectrum of people.  The evidence is in your poorly disguised egocentricity:

"Every attempt to make a new chess game during the past 500 years has failed and even if my game were ever successful it would take about 20 years before it went mainstream."

"There is hope however, my new chess rules are very specific, there are a limited number of ways to describe each new rule."

(this phrase could describe any and every rule of every game ever created...)

"I will however need lawyers to ensure that all bases are covered."

Yes, I'm sure you will.  A whole team of lawyers working pro bono because of their fervent belief in how your game will change the world.  If only the rank and file common man could see your genius, they would also join the fight...but alas, they are too far beneath you to comprehend the Gift you bestow upon them...

"Such a pain, struggle for years to get the game right, struggle for years writing code, and now I have to deal with lawyers "

This must be so hard for you...you are truly selfless!

"I don't think that I will ever make money from the game, money is not the point, the point is to make a game that some people will enjoy playing over the course of several centuries."

Maybe you should start with a game that people will play more than a few days before you write your name in the history books.

"I do not however think that it is fair for me to publish my game and certain people then exploit it for financial gain without even so much as saying thank you."

Again, maybe create a game that actually garners gratitude before assuming it will be co-opted away ...

"A little taste of the future..."  ...as if you are a harbinger of what's coming .

Completely delusional.

I see, you are the new sockpuppet of someone I have already taken to task previously.

You wish little man

Still using sockpuppet I see

Is that your favourite hobby? take a sock, make a puppet, play with it.

LOL 

Hi

Yes, you know what you are talking about.

You are from the states and you can register copyright for better protection, you do not have to prove actual damages in court.

Patents are pretty much a waste of time for practical and financial reasons, basically it's an exclusive monopoly but limited by time, 20 years, and any new chess game will take that long before it is popular so what's the point.

I live in Scotland and Copyright law started in the UK after the printing press was invented but the UK does not have copyright registration.

In the USA the founding fathers explicitly included copyright as a right for all citizens in the founding legal documents (either the actual declaration or one of the amendments) and that is the reason why I think that copyright law in the USA is more advanced than other countries.

Keep living in your teeny tiny world ...

First and foremost and most important: I made this game for the players.

I have devoted years of my life working on this. I have studied everything about the game, from it's early origins through to it's current form (and hundreds of other forms that you might not be aware of)

I have also been studying all of you: the players, the grandmasters, the politicians, the establishment.

There are certain things that I have seen that I do not like.

I will lay the foundation for the future and then my job will be done.

I used to work with a grandmaster in the past, for a very early version of my game, but now I have withdrawn completely and I refuse to publish the complete details of my game until things are proper.

Then you can play if you want to, that will be your decision.

I do not think in terms of months or years, I think in terms of centuries.

Warlord

The example of rule you provided is very poor.

It does not matter whether en passant actually happens on the board for it to have an effect. I've played with a friend a variant of mine when everything can take every thing en passant, and not a single ep capture occured, but I can tell you the game loked like nothing like chess, although this was the only different rule.

You got it right though that en passant is intimately linked with double moves, and your fix is ok, but not realy simpler than the current rules, to say the least.

But I really don't get the point of giving us a taste of the future while not actually giving us a taste of anything at all has to do in a forum post asking question about intellectual property.

The threat is stronger than the execution.

I agree, it does not matter in a game if an ep capture actually occurs.

What is more important is the consideration of the rule during thinking, in other words the fact that the rule does exist shapes the pawn structure.

A big difference between my rule and the chess ep rule is that with chess you only have one chance to capture ep it's basically take it or leave it. With my rule you can only advance one step and the tension between the pawns can be resolved immediately (like ep capture does) or the pawns could sit for several moves with the tension unresolved (neither player wants to capture)

The other big difference is that if the player steps forward one step and then decides next move or later to step forward once more (say to close the position or create a passed pawn) then he actually does so at the cost of a tempo.

I only showed the example to prove that I do actually have something (my game) so that experienced players could look at something concrete.

I understand that it may be quite frustrating to only be allowed to peek inside the box but not be allowed to actually take out the toy and play. 

By publicly disclosing that one rule, nobody including myself, can now include it in any patent application as public disclosure automatically invalidates any patent claim.

I have however, from last year, a document that explains the rule and it has a copyright notice on it, so I can still prove that the rule is from my game and that I created the rule.