darth_ender

Alright, take 2.  And don't worry about not being able tio reply till evening because I will likely be the same way.  I tend to be longwinded, but I can probably retype my last post in a shortened version.

First, we should change the gold general to a copper general.  Since there is no analogue to horizontal movement, and since the copper general is supposed to be inferior to the silver general anyway, if we simply change the name to copper general, it will retain the same move, yet be the obvious lower ranking version.

Second, the silver cannon is clearly more powerful than the gold cannon.  The gold cannon comes from Chinese chess, the silver from Korean chess.  On a 2D board, the gold cannon is clearly superior.  But on a 1D board with so many pieces, the silver cannon is obviously the better of the two.  In fact, it was so powerful that I almost would prefer to use the gold cannon instead, just to keep it closer in value to the other pieces.  But as you pointed out, if we only keep one cannon, what should we put on the other side?

Third, I am not sure a full-power lion would be as overwhelmingly powerful on a 1D as on a 2D.  But I do have my concerns, and I actually do lean more towards the weaker lion.  I'd like to perhaps try both the weaker and stronger version and see which is better.  In any case, I think the idea of using the kirin as the weaker value is a terrific idea.

I still need to take a better look at the setup, but I think you've got some good ideas.  Give me a bit.  I'm pretty busy today as well, so I'll get to it when I can.

I had a long post typed up, and the website pooped out and lost my post. I will probably just retype it in the morning.

Excellent thoughts.  I will take a better look when I get home.  I really appreciate your thoughts and your perception.  I probably won't post again till I get home, but I really appreciate the feedback.  Great thoughts!

SC*30 mate

That was a good game.  I am really pleased with how challenging it was.  I hope you enjoyed it.  Please whene you can, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the nature of the game, any feedback you have on the starting position, any weaknesses in any aspect of this game.  I really enjoyed your playing, and you had some very nice combinations!  Well played, sir :)

Bx17+RS

B*21.  It will be difficult to force a win with those blocked pieces.  I'll wear you down eventually.

Truthfully, I didn't expect to win this at all.  I'm surprised.  Of course, it's not over till it's over, so you might still pull a win out of this. :)

You forgot to promote to Goose.

RSx22+B

G*21. You were fine.  Don't worry about it.  Forgive my lack of commentary, but I'm busy with work.

P-15

RC-7

Thanks.  HHx26+N.

When you get the chance, could you make a diagram of our game?

HH*23

So I am curious about your thoughts.  What would you suggest changing for once this game is done?  I had suggested a positional change, one I'm still interested in.  But I am not certain how well I like the cannons.  They seem a bit too powerful for a game like this.  What's more, they are not truly native to Japanese Chess.  They come from Chinese Chess (gold cannon) and Korean Chess (silver cannon), and were adopted by a Westerner and given their present names for Cannon Shogi.  But there is no actual Japanese heritage for them, so I've always felt a bit like a cheater for including them.  On the other hand, they make the game exciting and faster paced, in what otherwise might take ages to complete.  The silver cannon in particular is especially effective on a one dimensional board, and when a game can get so easily cluttered, it's nice to have a mobile piece.  So I'm not sure.

I also think the first four pieces could use some more rearrangement.  When we started this game, I couldn't see a way to initiate a trade without coming out behind.  You did a good job starting the trades and getting our armies to clash, but it took some doing.  With enough study, it would probably be too easy to identify the best opening moves to make.  I want this game to be more complex than that.  Now that we're in the thick of it, I think the number of options has increased and thus made it more interesting and complex.  But the opening is too narrow.  I think it would be better to include more long-range pieces towards the front (especially the somewhat offensively useless lance/reverse chariot, which is always stuck behind its own pieces unless captured and dropped by the enemy), while tucking a couple of steppers or leapers (perhaps the silver, knight, or goose) closer to the back to act as defense.

I'm not entirely sure I want to shrink the board anymore.  Though it's rough for some of my pieces stuck way at my end, it's also good that the pieces in play have plenty of room to maneuver.

Anyway, these are my thoughts.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Not interested in helping.

If that's how he (and you) want to see it that's fine.  But I don't screw with anyone who doesn't act like a humorless doink or an idiot.

Remember this thread?

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/unOfficial-OTcom-Illuminati-Clique-Page-Conspirator-Eyes-Only/post/474824/

It happened because someone was a doink, and was convinced the rest of us "elites" were ganging up on him because we had a superior view of ourselves.  In reality, we just don't like people who act like doinks or idiots.

This old thread is also relevant.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/TVs-Frinks-Guide-To-Sensible-Posting-Or-How-Not-To-Be-A-Target/topic/12391/

Jetrell Fo 1 is guilty of at least nine of those.

Ole Bob Costas aka Insight Boy here just went on like a dozen post spree on the forum. 

He is the penultimate class clown, needs to be the center of attention at any cost .... doesn't have a care about where he steps as long as he gets acknowledged as being the one who did it.

As long as the mods don't keep him in check he will continue unabated.

I rest my case bkev.

:(    

 Penultimate meaning second to last or second most in this case, who is the ultimate class clown?  Is there someone sillier than Frink?  This might be the harshest insult you've given him! ;)

The above-mentioned verses:

24 Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord.

 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a ^arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the ^achastity of women. And^bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or ^acursed be the land for their sakes.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

In other words, if God needs more babies raised in the true faith, then he will explicitly allow polygamy.  Otherwise it is implicitly, and now even explicitly, off limits.

Where I live, we measure snow by 1/16ths of an inch.

Qd7

Well, I think we've both made some good moves this game, but I think we both have made some blunders as well.  I am certain you could have come out far better in this exchange than it's turning out for you.  I don't mean to be rude, and I certainly messed up so bad that even with your mistakes, you still are coming off better.  This is actually a far more interesting game than I could have hoped for!

Ph-26#

No worries, but I wonder if my board looks like yours because now I want to play Gsx27+Ph.  Is that not an available move on your board?

You must have also forgotten that Geese can jump two backwards.  Gsx21+Ph

I screwed it up, but I don't want to have to take anything back.  I'll play Phx23+Gs, and add a little side note that I hate you ;)

Not sure yet.  But I need to get home.

k
-
-
rs
ph
-
-
-
-
-
-
rc
s
p
-
-
-
P
-
-
-
SC
HH
ph
-
-
RS
l
n
K

Ric in hand:
SC/GC

ender in hand:
s/g

Let me know if that's not correct.

Marriage has been practiced between one man and more than one woman many times throughout history, including in the Bible by biblical patriarchs.  There were times when God accepted it.  We believe that most of the time he rejects it, and we even have scripture that states as much.  See Jacob 2:24-30.

For further reading, see:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

Yeah, looking at it now, I think I've really screwed things up.  Oh well.