Chess vs Law - Chess Forums - Page 3

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#41

JuergenWerner wrote:

I invented 4-way chess before chess 4 came out for my high school "introduction to logic" elective class. Chess 4 came out 2 years later. Rules were slightly different but pretty much the same to my 4-way chess.

Did you publicly post anything about your game, like on a forum or something?

If you did then somebody probably took your game changed a few things, and hey pesto, look how super smart we are.

That is exactly the problem that I have.

Who cares about the years of work, quick lets make an app or tweak a website.

Take care man

Warlord

p.s. a bit more than a tweak will be needed, trust me, I hit it from all sides.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#42

alexm2310 wrote:

Scottish flag? I live in Scotland.

"If all else fails, get the lawyers, seal the game rules, publish my game 100 years after my death."

And you'll pay somebody not even born yet to hype up your game? And 100 years, why? I can't see how this would be any better than releasing it upon your death, or tomorrow.

Or just take it with me to the grave.

Or publish 100 years from the anniversary of my death, I won't be around, but then again neither will you or anybody else, so who cares, if IP law will not provide protection then I will enforce my own monopoly for 100 years.

And I am being serious about that.

"Q: When will I release more details?
"A: When the chess establishment changes it's attitude."

The establishment will treat you with a different attitude when you present more information (enough for people to see you're serious - right now we're just taking your word for it), and hopefully with a better attitude yourself. Doesn't take an expert to see you've turned most of the commenters against you.

Seen lots of rude people on this forum during the past few years, don't see it changing anytime soon.

You come across deluded and egotistical. Maybe you're not, and you just don't know you're perceived.

Maybe I am.

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

I feel if this was true, you'd have released all the info so people could more fully help you develop this game. People who know things you don't.

I don't need help developing the game, been doing that for years, and now it is complete. I did the grandmaster thing in the past for a reason, for me it was just UAT, same thing that I do when I build financial systems for the banks.

I think you care more about being credited for your hard work.

Correct. Anything wrong with that?

vickalan

Feb 12, 2017

0

#43

game_designer wrote:

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

Yes, I'll play a test game, but with a few conditions:

(1) Instead of:
(Human) vs. (Human)
it will be:
(Human + Computer) vs. (Human + Computer)
That is, each side is allowed to use a chess engine in their play. This will help simulate a game between master level players. (if the engine recommends e.p. then human intervention is necessary of course).

(2) We play by correspondence (1 move per day, 3 days max). Again, this allows the game to be played at "expert" level, with ample time for consideration of each move.
(3) You post a diagram of the game's status after each move (after each W or B move).

In return, I'd like to play against you in "Chess on an Infinite Plane". I don't believe computer assistance is possible because no engine is programmed to play it (although the rules are very simple). I'll post a diagram after each day's move.

Since we play only one move per day, we can play both games concurently (on different threads). Btw, I am not your personal opponent. I enjoy reading information from anyone who plays chess, and likes to consider variants of chess. I would be your opponent only within the context of a game.

(whether or not you accept my later challenge, I will still play your test game).

I also wish good luck to you.

DiogenesDue

Feb 12, 2017

0

#44

game_designer wrote:

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.

First paragraph quoted:

No, the majority of responders here are correcting your misperceptions, not chomping at the bit to try your game.

Second:

You can't patent a variant of chess. Once again, for posterity.

Third:

Your copyrighted document buys you that fact that nobody could make photocopies of your exact text and sell it. That's it. It does not protect your variant rules at all.

DiogenesDue

Feb 12, 2017

0

#45

vickalan wrote:

game_designer wrote:

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

Yes, I'll play a test game, but with a few conditions:

(1) Instead of:
(Human) vs. (Human)
it will be:
(Human + Computer) vs. (Human + Computer)
That is, each side is allowed to use a chess engine in their play. This will help simulate a game between master level players. (if the engine recommends e.p. then human intervention is necessary of course).

(2) We play by correspondence (1 move per day, 3 days max). Again, this allows the game to be played at "expert" level, with ample time for consideration of each move.
(3) You post a diagram of the game's status after each move (after each W or B move).

In return, I'd like to play against you in "Chess on an Infinite Plane". I don't believe computer assistance is possible because no engine is programmed to play it (although the rules are very simple). I'll post a diagram after each day's move.

Since we play only one move per day, we can play both games concurently (on different threads). Btw, I am not your personal opponent. I enjoy reading information from anyone who plays chess, and likes to consider variants of chess. I would be your opponent only within the context of a game.

(whether or not you accept my later challenge, I will still play your test game).

I also wish good luck to you.

You can't play an engine assisted test of his game for the simple reason that no engines have been given piece and position valuations and rules for his variant. So, unless one of you is planned to hand-tool Stockfish source code for weeks (more likely months) to get this done, you won't be playing his variant this way.

Heck, most engines still can't play/evaluate Chess960 correctly.

Maybe you were thinking that this guy will just whip that up for this one game. That won't happen either. He mentioned writing this in 3 different languages not because of portability or speed, etc. but because he can't get the job done in any of them .

We're talking about a bipolar guy having a manic episode, and while his manic phases probably have focused elsewhere for the past year or two, this time it's back around to conquering the chess world with a couple of game tweaks and a script-kiddy's level of programming skill. Next time it will be back to making millions using cotton candy as home insulation edible in a FEMA emergency. This is all going exactly nowhere.

P.S. If this is the guy I am starting to remember, then last time around his photos, crazy rants, and Youtube videos were posted by some not-as-scrupulous-as-I members. For his own sake, he should be more realistic and careful this time.

vickalan

Feb 12, 2017

0

#46

I believe game_designer wanted to play a game of chess with only this one rule implemented. I don't think the one rule (cancel e.p.) will change piece values very much, if at all.

If he wants to play with all the rules, then he will have to reveal them. Either that or I'm stuck playing a game where he knows the rules and I don't.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#47

alexm2310 wrote:

1)I'm not sure why you're questioning my flag, I live here too.

That's all that I wanted to know. I was born in Scotland but my family moved to Rhodesia when I was a baby. You could have been a Scotsman living in some exotic country.

2) So is the 100 years because you don't want anyone alive now to potentially profit from your idea? What do you gain from that?

If I just publish now then I get nothing, but anyone else can profit from it, sound fair?

3) I don't think I was particularly rude, I made some observations. Could you honestly say you think you've been well received here?

I was not making a comment about you, you know what this forum is like, too many chess snobs, too many chess "experts".

4) Lastly, no, there's nothing wrong with wanting credit where credit is due. What I don't like is that you say "First and foremost and most important: I made this game for the players" when it's clear you care more about the recognition.

No, I care about the game and the players. Chess will continue long after we are gone. Same thing with my game, so we don't really matter. But there is nothing wrong with people knowing who made the game that they like playing.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#48

vickalan wrote:

game_designer wrote:

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

Yes, I'll play a test game, but with a few conditions:

(1) Instead of:
(Human) vs. (Human)
it will be:
(Human + Computer) vs. (Human + Computer)
That is, each side is allowed to use a chess engine in their play. This will help simulate a game between master level players. (if the engine recommends e.p. then human intervention is necessary of course).

(2) We play by correspondence (1 move per day, 3 days max). Again, this allows the game to be played at "expert" level, with ample time for consideration of each move.
(3) You post a diagram of the game's status after each move (after each W or B move).

In return, I'd like to play against you in "Chess on an Infinite Plane". I don't believe computer assistance is possible because no engine is programmed to play it (although the rules are very simple). I'll post a diagram after each day's move.

Since we play only one move per day, we can play both games concurently (on different threads). Btw, I am not your personal opponent. I enjoy reading information from anyone who plays chess, and likes to consider variants of chess. I would be your opponent only within the context of a game.

(whether or not you accept my later challenge, I will still play your test game).

I also wish good luck to you.

Hi

Sorry, I did say that I will not play.

It is not my complete game, it is just one rule from my game.

You can use an engine of course but the evaluation of the position will be a bit off.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#49

btickler wrote:

game_designer wrote:

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.

First paragraph quoted:

No, the majority of responders here are correcting your misperceptions, not chomping at the bit to try your game.

Second:

You can't patent a variant of chess. Once again, for posterity.

Third:

Your copyrighted document buys you that fact that nobody could make photocopies of your exact text and sell it. That's it. It does not protect your variant rules at all.

You can patent a game.

Not in the UK but yes for the states or a European patent.

Just google "chess patent" you can actually see hundreds of them.

I have been saying that a patent it is a waste of time and money,

Do you really think that I do not understand what copyright is? Really?

universityofpawns

Feb 12, 2017

0

#50

Don't patent/IP laws vary from country to country?? Plus chess is an international game. I think the trick would be to develop a really good website along with it and figure out how to drive traffic there/market it.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#51

btickler wrote:

vickalan wrote:

game_designer wrote:

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

Yes, I'll play a test game, but with a few conditions:

(1) Instead of:
(Human) vs. (Human)
it will be:
(Human + Computer) vs. (Human + Computer)
That is, each side is allowed to use a chess engine in their play. This will help simulate a game between master level players. (if the engine recommends e.p. then human intervention is necessary of course).

(2) We play by correspondence (1 move per day, 3 days max). Again, this allows the game to be played at "expert" level, with ample time for consideration of each move.
(3) You post a diagram of the game's status after each move (after each W or B move).

In return, I'd like to play against you in "Chess on an Infinite Plane". I don't believe computer assistance is possible because no engine is programmed to play it (although the rules are very simple). I'll post a diagram after each day's move.

Since we play only one move per day, we can play both games concurently (on different threads). Btw, I am not your personal opponent. I enjoy reading information from anyone who plays chess, and likes to consider variants of chess. I would be your opponent only within the context of a game.

(whether or not you accept my later challenge, I will still play your test game).

I also wish good luck to you.

You can't play an engine assisted test of his game for the simple reason that no engines have been given piece and position valuations and rules for his variant. So, unless one of you is planned to hand-tool Stockfish source code for weeks (more likely months) to get this done, you won't be playing his variant this way.

Heck, most engines still can't play/evaluate Chess960 correctly.

Maybe you were thinking that this guy will just whip that up for this one game. That won't happen either. He mentioned writing this in 3 different languages not because of portability or speed, etc. but because he can't get the job done in any of them .

We're talking about a bipolar guy having a manic episode, and while his manic phases probably have focused elsewhere for the past year or two, this time it's back around to conquering the chess world with a couple of game tweaks and a script-kiddy's level of programming skill. Next time it will be back to making millions using cotton candy as home insulation edible in a FEMA emergency. This is all going exactly nowhere.

P.S. If this is the guy I am starting to remember, then last time around his photos, crazy rants, and Youtube videos were posted by some not-as-scrupulous-as-I members. For his own sake, he should be more realistic and careful this time.

I should thank you really.

I started off just wanting to make a game, simple as that.

I am a financial guy, a developer, I build financial systems and databases for global retail banks and investment banks, so yes I am a script kiddy.

But I wanted to make a program with C# so over the years I finally decided to make a new chess game.

I also wanted to build a website, so I made a version of the game using JavaScript, easy for me.

Making the actual game however (game play, rules, etc) turned out to to be the hardest part, at first I thought 6 months, no problem, in reality it took years.

And now the part about why I should thank you.

I started using this forum a few years back, never used a forum before.

I noticed what people can be like on a public forum, rude, nasty, the list goes on.

It was because of people like you that I changed.

The game does exist and one day people will play it, when that happens I don't know.

But people like you are the main reason why I will not just go ahead and publish.

So finish building the game engine in C/C++

So finish the whole lawyer thing, yes this project has been uphill all the way.

Then I will take it from there, I know some grandmasters

But publish right now?

For people like you?

No

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#52

universityofpawns wrote:

Don't patent/IP laws vary from country to country?? Plus chess is an international game. I think the trick would be to develop a really good website along with it and figure out how to drive traffic there/market it.

Yes it does, hence international patents, applies to about 140 (or 160) countries that signed a treaty (convention)

Just more expense and complexity, need a special patent lawyer for international patents.

Yes website, but making it a success is a problem, you have to start from scratch (lots of code) but you already have many chess websites with an established customer base.

DiogenesDue

Feb 12, 2017

0

#53

game_designer wrote:

Second:

You can't patent a variant of chess. Once again, for posterity.

Third:

Your copyrighted document buys you that fact that nobody could make photocopies of your exact text and sell it. That's it. It does not protect your variant rules at all.

You can patent a game.

Not in the UK but yes for the states or a European patent.

Just google "chess patent" you can actually see hundreds of them.

I have been saying that a patent it is a waste of time and money,

Do you really think that I do not understand what copyright is? Really?

As you can clearly read, I did not say you cannot patent a game. I said that you cannot patent a variant of Chess, or any other game, unless you meet a threshold for changes that includes significant (i.e. not purely aesthetic) physical changes to the board/pieces, which is something you haven't mentioned at all.

Read this, for example:

http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/can-i-file-a-patent-for-a-new-derivative-of-chess

Now, let's look at Inverse Chess, an actual Chess "variant" patent:

https://www.google.com/patents/US8302969

If you read this patent, pay special attention to the right column, with the header "CLAIMS(2)"...the patent never would have made it through without this clunky addition that moves the patent out of the realm of simply being a game variant. So, unless you are planning to a manufacturing plant to your team of lawyers, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

The patent office has cracked down on people trying to do exactly what you are doing...tweaking a few rules and then claiming ownership of a game variant. This would allow you to be an a$$hat to anyone that uses some or even most of your rules variants in their own games...even though we all know there are plenty of hobbyists playing with every possible variation of chess rules and that your stuff is not going to be new/unique.

As for copyright, if you understand it, then stop trying to delude yourself that you can somehow wordsmith the rules in a way that they cannot be re-written without using your exact wording...it's not possible.

You should be thanking me; I am saving you a lot of time/effort. As for "It was because of people like you that I changed"...you changed in the wrong direction. Rather than exiting your bubble of denial, you just dug deeper in and became more paranoid about it. Your self-worth is clinging to a pipe dream, and deep down you know you cannot complete it, but even if you could, you wouldn't...because that would expose the truth that your imagined centuries-enduring legacy is never going to be a reality.

Wake up and do something useful with your life. People might consider this harsh, but it's the kindest advice anyone could give you...stop pretending you're the specialest snowflake, and go experience a real life.

vickalan

Feb 12, 2017

0

#54

game_designer wrote:

Sorry, I did say that I will not play.

OK, if you change your mind let me know.

Btw, if you have a game with pawns that have different rules (can't capture en passant) it might be fun if you have a different icon for the pawn. If you'd like you can use this:

The smile represents that he lets other pawns jump two squares past him, and Bulldog_rev02 won't capture him en passant!

You can use it for free without paying royalties to me.

Good luck in your game, and let us know when you will reveal another rule.

MickinMD

Feb 12, 2017

0

#55

The question you have to ask yourself -or better yet someone on a free legal help blog like (I just did a quick Google) The International Property Law Server, http://www.intelproplaw.com , - is why is something like the game Monopoly, first produced in 1930, still protected? It's, apparently, mainly because of the Trademark (http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=9813.0 ) - which, apparently, doesn't have a termination date. My graduate degree is in Chemistry, not Law, so that's why all the "apparently's." But, if that's the case, then you need a catchy, trademarkable name for your version of chess!

Note, by the way, that the pawns originally did NOT have the option of a two square leap at the first move. Apparently (I don't have a grad. degree in history, either), when the two squares option was introduced, the opponent's were allowed to treat the pawn as if it only moved one square so as not to wreck the tactics and strategies of the day that relied on your being able to keep a neighbor-file enemy pawn from getting past your pawn if you are two squares away when it moves. In other words, en passant removed the ability of a pawn to pass an enemy pawn without the risk of being captured.

Now, after all that consideration, you want to get rid of en passant? The, apparently, French guys (en passant is French for "in passing," n'est pas?) who concocted the rule in 1490 (according chess.com's chessopedia) to save the nature of the game must be turning in their half-millennium graves! Note, by the way, players have preferred that 1490 rule all along. As the song goes: "Why they changed it I can't say: people just liked it better that way!"

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#56

btickler wrote:

game_designer wrote:

Second:

You can't patent a variant of chess. Once again, for posterity.

Third:

Your copyrighted document buys you that fact that nobody could make photocopies of your exact text and sell it. That's it. It does not protect your variant rules at all.

You can patent a game.

Not in the UK but yes for the states or a European patent.

Just google "chess patent" you can actually see hundreds of them.

I have been saying that a patent it is a waste of time and money,

Do you really think that I do not understand what copyright is? Really?

As you can clearly read, I did not say you cannot patent a game. I said that you cannot patent a variant of Chess, or any other game, unless you meet a threshold for changes that includes significant (i.e. not purely aesthetic) physical changes to the board/pieces, which is something you haven't mentioned at all.

Read this, for example:

http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/can-i-file-a-patent-for-a-new-derivative-of-chess

Now, let's look at Inverse Chess, an actual Chess "variant" patent:

https://www.google.com/patents/US8302969

If you read this patent, pay special attention to the right column, with the header "CLAIMS(2)"...the patent never would have made it through without this clunky addition that moves the patent out of the realm of simply being a game variant. So, unless you are planning to a manufacturing plant to your team of lawyers, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

The patent office has cracked down on people trying to do exactly what you are doing...tweaking a few rules and then claiming ownership of a game variant. This would allow you to be an a$$hat to anyone that uses some or even most of your rules variants in their own games...even though we all know there are plenty of hobbyists playing with every possible variation of chess rules and that your stuff is not going to be new/unique.

As for copyright, if you understand it, then stop trying to delude yourself that you can somehow wordsmith the rules in a way that they cannot be re-written without using your exact wording...it's not possible.

You should be thanking me; I am saving you a lot of time/effort. As for "It was because of people like you that I changed"...you changed in the wrong direction. Rather than exiting your bubble of denial, you just dug deeper in and became more paranoid about it. Your self-worth is clinging to a pipe dream, and deep down you know you cannot complete it, but even if you could, you wouldn't...because that would expose the truth that your imagined centuries-enduring legacy is never going to be a reality.

Wake up and do something useful with your life. People might consider this harsh, but it's the kindest advice anyone could give you...stop pretending you're the specialest snowflake, and go experience a real life.

Just keep ranting man

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#57

vickalan wrote:

game_designer wrote:

Sorry, I did say that I will not play.

OK, if you change your mind let me know.

Btw, if you have a game with pawns that have different rules (can't capture en passant) it might be fun if you have a different icon for the pawn. If you'd like you can use this:

The smile represents that he lets other pawns jump two squares past him, and Bulldog_rev02 won't capture him en passant!

You can use it for free without paying royalties to me.

Good luck in your game, and let us know when you will reveal another rule.

"The smile represents that he lets other pawns jump two squares past him"

Sorry, do you even understand my rule?

A pawn can not jump 2 squares when it is blocked with my rule.

I suspect that once again you are tying to promote extra pieces that are available for sale from another website.

So much so that you do not even understand my rule.

Please do your promoting somewhere else

Thank you

OneThousandEightHundred18

Feb 12, 2017

0

#58

Lmao!! This guy is seriously so paranoid he thinks the cat pawn with a smiley face is being sold somewhere. Amazing.

game_designer

Feb 12, 2017

0

#59

MickinMD wrote:

The question you have to ask yourself -or better yet someone on a free legal help blog like (I just did a quick Google) The International Property Law Server, http://www.intelproplaw.com , - is why is something like the game Monopoly, first produced in 1930, still protected? It's, apparently, mainly because of the Trademark (http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=9813.0 ) - which, apparently, doesn't have a termination date. My graduate degree is in Chemistry, not Law, so that's why all the "apparently's." But, if that's the case, then you need a catchy, trademarkable name for your version of chess!

Note, by the way, that the pawns originally did NOT have the option of a two square leap at the first move. Apparently (I don't have a grad. degree in history, either), when the two squares option was introduced, the opponent's were allowed to treat the pawn as if it only moved one square so as not to wreck the tactics and strategies of the day that relied on your being able to keep a neighbor-file enemy pawn from getting past your pawn if you are two squares away when it moves. In other words, en passant removed the ability of a pawn to pass an enemy pawn without the risk of being captured.

Now, after all that consideration, you want to get rid of en passant? The, apparently, French guys (en passant is French for "in passing," n'est pas?) who concocted the rule in 1490 (according chess.com's chessopedia) to save the nature of the game must be turning in their half-millennium graves! Note, by the way, players have preferred that 1490 rule all along. As the song goes: "Why they changed it I can't say: people just liked it better that way!"

Hi

Yes, I know about that legal forum.

I think that there are monopoly (the game) clones and you are probably right they never did become popular because of the trademark, people will just pick up a box in a toy store for something that they recognise.

Funny story that I read was that KFC chicken was never patented, a secret recipe that is locked in a safe. this recipe was then split in two. different factories make each mix and the 2 mixes are combined somewhere else. a bit like the mixing paint story often used when explaining encryption. it is very easy to mix paint but almost impossible to separate mixed paint perfectly.

KFC did not patent the recipe because patents expire.

My rule does not allow a pawn to double jump to bypass a square that is controlled by an opposing pawn.

My rule is a rule in my game, it has nothing to do with chess.

OneThousandEightHundred18

Feb 12, 2017

0

#60

Suddenly your game has nothing to do with chess even though it is chess with 8 rule changes?

Keep going while I make popcorn