darth_ender

Will respond when I have more time.

HH*15

P-14

Nx17

SC-8

I'm da brains o' dis here outfit, see?  So youse don't get no funny ideas now, see?

I'm glad.  Thanks for understanding :)

S-12

P-13

Gs-11

Well, it's still worth considering.  I think it would be best to block any drops from immediate checkmate, and the bishop or cannon could do that assuming the king or ramshead haven't moved.  I think shrinking the board is better too, so here's my next proposal.

P
N
S
Gs
-
L
-
SC
RS
K

It makes the board a bit smaller, nearly every piece can move in the beginning (minus the king and silver), and those that aren't are quickly available to move.  There is some space for maneuvering, and no threat of an instant checkmate when holding the right piece early in the game.  Tell me what you think.  We could probably still play our game at the past setup without too much difficulty, but we should play the next something closer to this.

Worth considering.  However, the king can capture anyone who is too close.  The main pieces that could be threatening would be the cannon (gold or silver) and the ramshead soldier/bishop on the opposite color.  I'm pretty busy, so give me some time to think on it, and I'll get back to you.

N-14

Gs-13

I changed the notes and piece in place after reading your post, then changed the placement back but didn't change the notes.  Regardless of the right, I really feel it would be best to start with the silver in place.  Yes, let's give it a go.  You can go first.  I may not get to move for a bit, but I'll try to make a couple other moves today. 

I do want to add to this thread an apology to TV's Frink.  It's not that I think the main point I was making was incorrect, but rather my phrasing.  Sympathy was the wrong word to use.  I should say that I feel his personal story, while valuable in many cases, can be overused or incorrectly used.  I don't like my arguments deflated with an incorrect application such an anecdote.  But there are many cases where such anecdotes are valuable and conducive to discussion.  I am sorry for the difficult situation he faced with such long-lasting effects.  I am sorry for being/sounding insensitive about it.  It clearly left a deep scar.  I do ask, however, that when you use it, you don't use it to make me sound like a jerk, especially when I'm giving a general rule, and you know that I believe in exceptions.  Hopefully we can remain friends in spite of our vastly different POVs on this topic, and particularly for when I stumble over my words.

As for Bingowings, I'm a little less inclined to apologize.  I really feel you have mischaracterized me, and to be so harsh in your judgment of me when you should be aware of my personal views and my efforts to be congenial even in disagreement is awfully frustrating.  I think it was obvious that I did not intend to be mean, and I have said before that I don't judge him for his situation.  I feel that many of your points are often made with less than respect.  Forgive me for using the wrong word now and then.

Yes, thanks for not reading anything thoroughly.  I understand that what I said may have been offensive.  But no matter what I say, it seems like TV's Frink brings up his personal experience.  I have said so many times that I don't intend to judge him, that I don't fully understand his case.  I have said many times that there are justifiable exceptions, that perhaps his is such a case, that my comments are intended as my rules in general and not specific to anyone or any specific instance.  And even though the thought of needlessly terminating a late term child's life (though I do feel that early term is not acceptable, the conversation was specifically about late term abortions as they "can survive ouside the mother," and are therefore not just "a bunch of cells") does indeed make me want to throw up, that does not mean TV's Frink, whether justifiable in his actions or not (and for the record, from what I understand of his situation, I feel that his actions were jusfifiable) makes me want to throw up.  I think I've stated my position so clearly so many times, and I tried to say it humorously, but I feel like my position is frequently attacked from Frink's personal angle.  Too often the substance of my arguments are not addressed.  I don't like that.  I don't like anecdotes trumping what I'm really saying.  Clearly you have not read this thread "cover to cover," as you would see that my personal views are not so condescending as you portray, so please stop with your caricatures.

If you don't have the memory to know, or the stamina to refresh yourself on my views, then let me reaquaint you with the facts: I don't have a problem with Frink.  I don't judge anyone who has had an abortion, unless they were doing something they knew to be wrong.  I feel it is terribly wrong, but I also feel it is terribly misunderstood.  I feel that it is only rarely appropriate, but indeed appropriate at times.  I feel that no matter how small the child, her or she is more than just a bunch of cells.  I feel that personal anecdotes are useful, but when overused or not applicable, do not help to further the discussion.  I feel that Frink's use here missed the mark.

I agree with much of what you said, including the treatment of animals, the inappropriateness of simply blaming women (as always, things are more complicated than that), etc.  But I am against abortion, I believe wholeheartedly that it is wrong is most cases, and I feel tired that I have to repeat myself so often, yet folks are determined to argue against a strawman instead of my genuine views.

Thanks for your patience.  No, we can't send files via PMs.  I will send you a link for sharing.  If you ever want, you can give me your email address.  But since I know you might not be comfortable with that, we can just go this route for now.  I'm glad you're saving the different versions.  I think that is wise.  Unfortunately I did not do the same.  I will send what I have, and you can simply copy it to yours.

I did remove the duplicate gold/lion for now.  I think you are right about the gold and silver differences, with the advantage of the silver being able to retreat more quickly.  Believe it or not, I originally had the iron/silver piece as a silver/gold, but as the silver was supposed to be weaker in regular shogi, yet such was not so clear in this version, and since I was trying to make the weaker face more forward oriented, I changed it to iron/silver.  Perhaps you are right....

No, I really want to keep the silver's retreat options early in the new setup.  I'm not sure if one is truly more valuable than the other, or if they are simply more valuable in different circumstances.  

Still thinking I should leave the lion out for now, and maybe later see about adding it in.  The new set up still requires 30 cells.  I slightly adjusted the middle and rear pieces.  Everything is given some movement, and depending on what strategy a person is going for, slight repositioning could allow pieces in back to move to the fore more easily.  But it depends on which pieces you really want to get out, as different repositioning would be more helpful to other pieces.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  PM coming your way soon.

Well, I haven't messed up that setup on my board if you want to continue playing, but I'd almost rather skip the mess with the first four pieces.  I guess if you want to take back your last move, we could go from there with the alternate arrangement of those pieces.

JEDIT: Of course then we'd have two gold generals.  I wish I'd played this with someone when I first came up with these rules, but I was all by my lonesome without any shogi partner :'( *sniff*

I honestly think we will need to start over.  We haven't gotten too far, and I may want to adjust the other pieces for now as well.  And I do need to work tomorrow.  What I will do is spend a few more minutes seeing if I like a different setup (probably similar to what you have already done).  I will send you my Excel spreadsheet (probably in the morning), either to play with or to rearrange your own.  Sorry about the bad news and lack of progress.

ROAR!

Star Trek Phase II released Kitumba on New Years Eve and will be making another release on Valentine's Day!  That's pretty fast for this sort of production.  Star Trek Continues also released their second full length episode recently.  I'm amazed at how much was done recently with these two interesting fan productions.

Just a minute of looking helped me come up with something else.  Right now I'm just referring to the first four pieces that get in each others' ways so often:

P
N
S
Gs

So I move the knight forward, replace the iron general with a silver general (with a gold general on the reverse) and place that piece third, and have the goose in back.  This allows the pawn, knight, or goose the first move.  Once the pawn or knight has moved, the silver may move.  One may move the pawn and knight, or silver and knight, without having to move any other pieces forward.  See, this was part of the problem: once you moved one of your pieces forward, you had to move it again just to move another piece, and thus place your first piece in danger.  This way two pieces may move.  The silver and goose also have an option for retreat.  So a player, even with such weak starting pieces, can still rearrange the pieces a bit as part of his opening moves.  What do you think?

I should make sure that we are on the same page here: the gold  moves just like the silver, only it steps one backwards instead of jumping 2 backwards.  

Well, I'm unhappy with this already.  First, I had my board set up incorrectly, but now that I've fixed it, I don't see how you could have moved your Silver Cannon to 22.  I am not blaming you, but as we are working from our own separate Excel creations, we may have things different enough to cause such an miscommunication.

But far more grievous, I'm still very unhappy with the starting position, and I really will need to think of something to make it more workable.  Again, I don't blame you, and I in fact very much appreciate your reworked positioning, but I think we will need to toy further with the positions to make this a workable game.  Whatever position we want to try, I suggest one of us create the spreadsheet, then send it to the other.  Give me a few minutes to look it over.

I will say that changing direction might allow for two captures, since it depends on what interpretation of two squares we are considering.  If the second square is looked at as two squares orthogonal, then that is the whole move.  But if we think of it like a diagonal (as it is with the bishop, for instance), then it could lead to a change in direction and two captures (i.e. capture two squares forward, then back one and capture again).  This probably misses the point too much of the lion and we should skip it this time around.  I would like to try a more powerful lion next game and see how it goes.

So considering our rules are set for now, I move L-8

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

How can any human being murder another human being that can survive outside the mother? It makes me want to throw up.

darth_ender said:

I agree with your last two sentences very much.

I'm sorry I make you guys want to throw up.

 I think if you pay attention to all my posts, including my previous post in this topic, you will see that I am open to exceptions.  You know my stance and I really am sorry for the decision you had to make, but I don't feel you need to continually bring it up for sympathy whenever I share my general opinion.  Clearly I am referring to people who do so for any reason other than genuine need.

On the other hand, there are many other ways you make me want to throw up ;)

Actually, the piece I thought of was very similar to your lynx idea.  I was still going to call it a lion, but a true adaptation, according the rules I set up, would allow it to move up to four spaces.  I was going to set a limit at two, but still allow a change of direction, the igui attack, and perhaps the turn passing (though I'm not sure about that last one).  The reason I suggest this as the opposite face for the gold is because I wanted all my pieces to have a similar piece on the opposite side.  The lower value would be more forward oriented, but would move in a certain way or up to a certain number of squares, i.e. the pawn one, the iron general two, the knight three, the goose four.  On the opposite side would be the same move or maximum number of squares in the forward direction, plus increased abilities, including more retreating options.  A lion like this would indeed move two forward, just like the gold, but have improved abilities and retreat.  That is my reasoning.  I am still unsure about your thoughts as to not including it, and I'm honestly still interested in how it would behave with full abilities.  But we can try that later.  If you're open to several games, we can experiment with several rule sets.  Let's use what we have for now and go from there.

I'll make a move soon.  I have to adjust the board and take care of my sick wife.