Chess vs Law
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
I actually read everything in this whole thread. The Will Arnett video was a welcome relief. As to the proposed game being released to us ever so slowly.
Chess has only become what it is through centuries. Meaning hundreds of years of input and practice to make it what we now have. With your current approach, you won't have the input of masses because you are concerned about the reception of some. Without you being willing to actually share the game, how can you ever expect it to grow and become what you envision?
I'll be willing to play your version under your rules, I'd rather it be against another person, since the inclusion of engines doesn't add to my enjoyment of chess.
Also, I know you are passionate about this, and you have been blocking posters, but your assessment of the chess community seems more of an assessment of the chess.com forums. The actual chess community - the ones at tournaments, and the ones who play and love the game - is not harsh and evil and looking to steal.
Chess has only become what it is through centuries. Meaning hundreds of years of input and practice to make it what we now have. With your current approach, you won't have the input of masses because you are concerned about the reception of some. Without you being willing to actually share the game, how can you ever expect it to grow and become what you envision?
I'll be willing to play your version under your rules, I'd rather it be against another person, since the inclusion of engines doesn't add to my enjoyment of chess.
Also, I know you are passionate about this, and you have been blocking posters, but your assessment of the chess community seems more of an assessment of the chess.com forums. The actual chess community - the ones at tournaments, and the ones who play and love the game - is not harsh and evil and looking to steal.
I read the first two posts in this thread.
The very first post, page one, has a copyright at the bottom of their post.
The very next post copies and re-prints the entire first post, including the copyright.
I found that amusing.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#124
SouthWestRacingNews wrote:
I read the first two posts in this thread.
The very first post, page one, has a copyright at the bottom of their post.
The very next post copies and re-prints the entire first post, including the copyright.
I found that amusing.
Oh, very good 
Funny thing I saw
I read quite a bit online about all this junk
One day I did something like this on google "What is copyright"
Got a whole list of sites, you know the type, ask me, definitions, those sort of sites.
They were all using exactly the same definition, more than one paragraph.
They had all just copied the same thing from somewhere.
Made me laugh.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#125
MaxDehn wrote:
Sounds like for the sake of simplifying the computer representation and analysis for allowing e.p, it's being traded for the complication of when an otherwise legal pawn move would now be illegal.
Seems like a pretty simple rule to me:
A pawn can not jump over a square that is controlled by an opposing pawn.
En passant does have it's complications as well because it is not a standard move, it affects three squares on the board.
Here is the en passant page from wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant
Feb 20, 2017
0
#126
baptistpreach wrote:
I actually read everything in this whole thread. The Will Arnett video was a welcome relief. As to the proposed game being released to us ever so slowly.
Chess has only become what it is through centuries. Meaning hundreds of years of input and practice to make it what we now have. With your current approach, you won't have the input of masses because you are concerned about the reception of some. Without you being willing to actually share the game, how can you ever expect it to grow and become what you envision?
I'll be willing to play your version under your rules, I'd rather it be against another person, since the inclusion of engines doesn't add to my enjoyment of chess.
Also, I know you are passionate about this, and you have been blocking posters, but your assessment of the chess community seems more of an assessment of the chess.com forums. The actual chess community - the ones at tournaments, and the ones who play and love the game - is not harsh and evil and looking to steal.
Chess has only become what it is through centuries. Meaning hundreds of years of input and practice to make it what we now have. With your current approach, you won't have the input of masses because you are concerned about the reception of some. Without you being willing to actually share the game, how can you ever expect it to grow and become what you envision?
I'll be willing to play your version under your rules, I'd rather it be against another person, since the inclusion of engines doesn't add to my enjoyment of chess.
Also, I know you are passionate about this, and you have been blocking posters, but your assessment of the chess community seems more of an assessment of the chess.com forums. The actual chess community - the ones at tournaments, and the ones who play and love the game - is not harsh and evil and looking to steal.
I agree with everything that you have said.
Thank you for being considerate and taking the time to read all the posts in the topic.
It is a difficult situation indeed.
Why is it that everybody wants to be a grandmaster and yet the actual grandmasters do not have a pension and most of them struggle to earn a decent living from chess.
Why is it that they often quote that 600 million people play chess and yet chess is not mainstream, it is in fact very niche.
In reality 600 million have tried chess and most quickly move on, just like that fad they tried with the Rubiks Cube.
You are correct about the forums, it has been very tough the last few years.
I only found out about blocking people a few days ago, I only do it to keep the topic clean.
I do have my reasons for doing it like this, the legal junk, I want chess to be better for everybody.
Warlord
To be honest I think it would be a better idea to create a new whole game rather than changing the rules of a game that have existed for centuries.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#129
Pashak1989 wrote:
To be honest I think it would be a better idea to create a new whole game rather than changing the rules of a game that have existed for centuries.
I am making a new game, I am not changing western chess.
Chess (western) as you know it has only existed since the 15th century.
Chess (all versions) however has been slowly evolving for more than 1,500 years.
Note that even today there are regional versions of chess that are not the same as western chess, for example, Thai Makruk is a game played by millions of people in Thailand, it is the game most similar to the ancient form of chess.
Yes but chess is actually pretty "irrelevant" for the vast majority of people in the world.
I mean, there are obviously "hardcore fans" like us who have chess books, who play games and then analyze them, who know the name of openings etc. etc.
But for most people in the world it is very different, they just barely know the rules of the game and they make the first move they think about. Theory, tactics, endgames?? WTH is that?
So, chess as it is, is not really that popular. For most people it is actually very boring.
Personally I don't think that a game that is completely based in chess (Even though you say is a new game) will be successful.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#131
Pashak1989 wrote:
Yes but chess is actually pretty "irrelevant" for the vast majority of people in the world.
I mean, there are obviously "hardcore fans" like us who have chess books, who play games and then analyze them, who know the name of openings etc. etc.
But for most people in the world it is very different, they just barely know the rules of the game and they make the first move they think about. Theory, tactics, endgames?? WTH is that?
So, chess as it is, is not really that popular. For most people it is actually very boring.
Personally I don't think that a game that is completely based in chess (Even though you say is a new game) will be successful.
Well, every chess game that someone has tried to make during the last 500 years has failed.
Sure there are some versions that are played by a few people, but nothing is really popular.
Even some grandmasters don't know all the rules of chess.
There's just no market for chess variants, and for that reason, I'm out.
game_designer wrote:
Even some grandmasters don't know all the rules of chess.
That is probably true. But the rules of chess are easy, and few. Probably only a couple dozen pages. If a grandmaster doesn't know all the rules its by choice. That is probably part of the reason chess is slow to change, it's a very simple game to learn and understand but extremely difficult to master. It's not like golf where there are only about 26 basic rules but over 600 pages detailed rules and rulings. Probably no professional golfer knows all the rules of their profession.
Feb 21, 2017
0
#134
lfPatriotGames wrote:
game_designer wrote:
Even some grandmasters don't know all the rules of chess.
That is probably true. But the rules of chess are easy, and few. Probably only a couple dozen pages. If a grandmaster doesn't know all the rules its by choice. That is probably part of the reason chess is slow to change, it's a very simple game to learn and understand but extremely difficult to master. It's not like golf where there are only about 26 basic rules but over 600 pages detailed rules and rulings. Probably no professional golfer knows all the rules of their profession.
Well, I am not going to discuss the specifics of any rules for any game
Apart from what I have already disclosed in this forum topic.
Note that I have highlighted a sentence above.
Part of the plan already.
Feb 22, 2017
0
#135
Rule # 7
A pawn can not jump over a square that is controlled by an opposing pawn.
Amusing is it not?
Even the chess engines can't prove me wrong.
Even when the chess engines are using a different rule ...
They still don't like jumping over that controlled square.
Warlord
You're talking to yourself. Nobody cares. You drove everyone away with your ego and attitude, which is why your game design efforts are always futile.
Feb 23, 2017
0
#138
DiogenesVC wrote:
You're talking to yourself. Nobody cares. You drove everyone away with your ego and attitude, which is why your game design efforts are always futile.
You have been blocked.
Goodbye
Warlord
Feb 24, 2017
0
#139
Just to be really annoying...
Rule # 6
A stalemate is a win in my game.
Warlord
White to move wins