|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
black_cat_hamlet 10-Oct-10, 23:42 |
 Perhaps some of you have noticed...I don't know whether it'll be put up or not, but if it does... I beg of you, Gameknot, not to restrict it to paying members, because it looks awesome! I'd be happy even if I'm only allowed to get one 'dark chess' game at a time! |
||||||
|
kingdawar 11-Oct-10, 06:51 |
|
||||||
|
kingdawar 11-Oct-10, 06:58 |
|
||||||
|
somar96 11-Oct-10, 09:21 |
|
||||||
|
rookie879 11-Oct-10, 09:42 |
|
||||||
|
I'm prepared to forgive... I'll probably give it a go, but I doubt I'll be playing it very often, and may cease altogether after a few goes. Speaking of 'dark', I am puzzled by something that has nothing at all to do with this thread. You will recall that "dark matter" was postulated as the "glue" that stops the universe flying apart. Now that it is known that the universe is indeed flying apart, why the continued acceptance of the "dark matter" postulate? Just curious... :/ |
||||||
|
x-machine and somar96, why so much worry about it being for premium members only? Just curious, how many people are holding a gun to your head preventing you from subscribing? We are talking about $3.33 per month here after all. I realize it might be too much for some, but certainly not *impossible* for most, right? And you'll be pitching in your share that goes into the development of all new features on GameKnot... Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 11-Oct-10, 14:20 |
I became a gold life member and I don't even use half of the features you guys do! I do not get involved in tournaments,no ladders,no leagues,no teams,rarely any clubs,no puzzle solving and I play nowhere near 50 games that a gold member is allowed...more like 4 or 5 at a time max!And only some occassional blitz on a Fri or Sat night.And I have no interest at all in Civ,dark chess,chess 960 or anything else! So why all the money for a life membership?This site is the best chess corresp site on Earth...clean and simple!And I belong to 7 other chess sites!I do not need all the bells and whistles or variants or 50 games,ect ect.Just some strong competition at my rating level,a little chat from time to time and a nice profile layout. Supporting GK is important,if you guys want to continue to see more improvements in the years to come.Those who cannot afford to pay a few dollars should ask someone in the family to buy you a silver or gold membership as a Christmas gift! Now the only thing I want for a GK Christmas is a 4 minute,zero increment blitz option! You guys keep the Dark Chess!Ha,ha! |
||||||
|
black_cat_hamlet 11-Oct-10, 21:22 |
Okay... This sounds a little silly, but I'd be nervous asking my mum for it, even if it is a small amount... partly because I shouldn't be spending so much time on here with important exams coming up (don't worry, I'm still studying! Chess is my 'brain break!' ) and also partly because my mum says that I spend too much time on here sometimes! |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 12-Oct-10, 01:53 |
Keep in mind that one of the best features if/when you become a paying member isn't actually all the "non restrictive"usage but how much faster the loading speed of the GK pages are as well as the disappearance of ad banners,increased quality of your profile and more.You will notice the difference in quality immediately! I'm glad for all the new features coming up,whether I use them or not,but support is always the best thing you can do. As I told many in the past...."playing less is more!"Quality play,taking more time to look deeper into a smaller amt of games,will generally yield better results,thus higher ratings,over quantitative play. While my option to play 50 games at one time exists(and some play over 100 games at one time),I would NEVER do this,its practically against my religion!But of course,those who do not care about personal ratings or considerable self improvement...well then,play 200 games at one time! If played one game a year and had my profile blank,i'd still be a supporting gold member on GK! |
||||||
|
somar96 12-Oct-10, 07:35 |
|
||||||
|
qwkslvr 12-Oct-10, 10:58 |
Fischer Chess |
||||||
|
tugger 12-Oct-10, 12:21 |
I might have a look at this "dark chess", I assume one can play an unrated game. GK, you guys should probably let people get used to it for a month or so and then ask what we think it should be called, it might help whip up some interest in it. |
||||||
|
kingdawar 12-Oct-10, 13:14 |
The required foundation/ideas/graphics for the new variant could be used to enhance the current chessplaying boards, that would be great. Initially I voted against, simply because it would seem to me that GameKnot's main interface would have to shift too much - i.e. you get a games list of normal chess combined with Dark Chess? And is there a market at all for this to me unknown variant? But after some further thought now I'm not against the idea of adding Dark Chess and other variants per se. What about Correspondence Bughouse where the player and his opponent both have control over two boards? Correspondence Crazyhouse should be easy enough to implement afterwards (it's just one board instead of two). And Dark Chess... fog of war... it could work out just fine. It would make GameKnot more of a game portal than a correspondence chess site though. The Puzzles/Tactics/Games Database are not related to CC of course, but they are all related to "orthodox Chess". OK too much senseless text. I'll stop for now |
||||||
|
My guess about variant rating, Tugger @ Heinzkat, good thoughts on the "Dark Chess". And you are absolutely (wikipedia.org) confirmed about capturing the King: "The goal of this chess variant is not to checkmate the king, but to capture it. A player isn't told if their king is in check. Failing to move out of check, or moving into check, are both legal, and can obviously result in a capture and loss of the game. En passant capture is allowed, even if you do not see that it is possible. Unlike standard chess, castling is allowed even out of check, into check and through the positions attacked by opponent pieces." |
||||||
|
black_cat_hamlet 13-Oct-10, 01:17 |
En passant... |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 13-Oct-10, 03:41 |
x-machine ... Good point Tho I suppose they could chose to keep the pawn dark if they wish to justify it by saying only SQuares under attack are lit. And I have not seen the Wiki. But the prior interpretation seems the most logical and practical to me. And the latter seems to me less strategic and more dependent on guesswork, as you suggest. So I hope the game is not completely lacking in strategic concepts. |
||||||
|
As for chess variants, in my youth we played what we called "Tandem" (Google says "Bughouse" in English). Not suitable for long games, of course, but a nice Blitz feature ). We used to play that quite a lot... |
||||||
|
rookie879 13-Oct-10, 08:28 |
|
||||||
|
kingdawar 13-Oct-10, 08:59 |
Tandem/bughouse In the meantime I am thinking Dark Chess castling rules should allow one to castle through check. Which means it's far from the same game with the same rules. And of course there is no moves list kept - only a hidden one on the server to decide what pieces are shown. And I am guessing there is no room for a real "analysis board" either... |
||||||
|
somar96 13-Oct-10, 12:17 |
Censorship |
||||||
|
Interesting debate. Ther will be some differences though. In CK you can use the opposing pieces to try and cnstruct the enemy positon (and you can get it fairly accurately for a while). But of course CK is moderated by a third person. You may ask one question: 'Are there any pawn captures?' The answers to this are either 'No' or 'Try'. If you receive the latter reply, you must try one (but there's nothing to force you to try a likely one!). Mind you, in 'Civilization' you can see what lies close by, so awn captures might not be such a problem. I do believe that if your king is in check, that too is anounced, though you are not told whence comes the check. In Chess960, I daresay these notions might be tried. For instance, you might try pawn captures, bearing in mind that if cetain pawn captures are undesirable to you you avoid those. But this process might prove too vexing for some. If there were a button you could press to enquire of pawn captures, then it could respond as does the CK umpire. If you are in check, then there has to be some indication of this. One method is to have a masked score of the game (to be revealed at its close), but with the current 'check' revealed. |
||||||
|
Now back on topic. After carefully reading the wikipedia article on Dark Chess, it does not appear to be anything like what we have in mind. What they are describing changes too much as far as the chess rules, and we would like to avoid that as much as possible. Another good reason to call it something else then. Shadow Chess? Cloudy Chess? Gray Chess? Fuzzy Chess? This chess variant will have all the same rules as the classic chess, with the checkmate, no castling through an attacked square, no moving King into check, etc. etc.. Threefold repetition will still be in too, but won't be very practical — unless you keep trying to claim it after every move just in case. Of course the move list will only show the moves for your opponent for which you can see both the starting and the ending square. All other moves will be hidden. And "analyze the board" page will have to be modified of course. And no Game DB link too. |
||||||
|
kingdawar 13-Oct-10, 13:34 |
About the legality issues: that should change the game completely, as I had thought in the previous few days. If I want to castle Queenside as white, and the application disallows me to do that, that gives information of the opposition's camp. They are attacking c1/d1 with an invisible piece (or my king is in check even). I really think castling should be allowed in such a case, even if you see those pieces attacking your squares (or King at the end). Other rules, en passant is logical - you don't see pawn, then suddenly there is one. You can take it e.p. because it has moved two squares. Other "strange" rules? Promotion, just like it is in normal chess. The only points of change are moving into/through check (like in castling) and the announcing of a check. I don't think a "check" should be given by the application - adds to the sneaky part of the fog. Also, if I want to move a pinned piece (with a King behind it), then allow me to do it. The opponent will capture my king next move, that's how the game is played. Right? If he gives check, and I do nothing about it, he'll capture my king next move. Good game. |
||||||
|
kingdawar 13-Oct-10, 13:40 |
|
||||||
|
May I suggest an alternative...? A bit of a favorite of mine way back when (nigh 40 years ago, come to think of it!). |
||||||
|
somar96 14-Oct-10, 00:04 |
@gameknot_com, I have seen many positive comments not getting deleted, not only about gameknot, about other sites too Thanks for the answers! |
||||||
|
: one in the middle that the game master saw with all the pieces and then the two players sitting back to this on each side with their own board where you had only pieces of your color. You would try moves and ask if they were legal (if they were you had to move the piece there). I think the strategic aspect of trying to guess unknown information (such as not being able to castle for example) was very interesting and actually is what made the variant intellectually challenging rather than simply blind hit and miss fun. And when a piece of yours get captured, the feeling of seeing it simply vanish without knowing what is now in its place is really thrilling. I know that what gameknot proposes is not exactly the same thing, meaning that you would actually see some pieces of your opponent if you can capture them - but you would still see your pieces vanish, though, if they were taken while undefended. I agree with somar96 and Heinzkat in that we shouldn't see the starting square of a piece : each position should be new. Following the example above, you should see a knight appear on g6 a pawn disappear on h7 and that's it. |
||||||
|
black_cat_hamlet 15-Oct-10, 00:56 |
Alice Chess? And let's see if Gameknot stays true to their word... Gameknot should be king of all chess websites, because its awesome pile of epic awesomeness far exceeds that of Jupiter - and Jupiter's an awesome planet Oh, by the way... if we wanted to review the game afterwards, we would be able to see the whole moveset from both players, right? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
