darth_ender

RicOlie_2 said:

Note that I added the gold general, so when you make a mock-up, make sure you put it in there. :) If you agree with having it in there, what should it promote to?

Assuming we're starting over, I'll make the first move of SC-7.

EDIT: Pardon me, I'm starting on the wrong side of the board! SC-22 is what I meant.

 Perhaps the Gold General could promote to a lion-type piece, only weaker.  I really like the idea of the lion...I can't finish right now.  Too much going on, but hang in there and I will explain later.

Horrendous Space Kablooie

You would be my hero if you adopted a Calvin & Hobbes-related name!

Oops.  I put that in the wrong thread!

Horrendous Space Kablooie

You would be my hero if you adopted a Calvin & Hobbes-related name!

I honestly doubt the board size will much much different in game length.  Several of the pieces are long range, and the option for drops would allow quick crossing of the board and infiltration of enemy territory.  So your setup might be great!  I still suggest five or six spaces between armies.  I also wonder if it would actually be more interesting to allow the stronger faces of some pieces to be present first, allowing retrat and making players a little more hesitant to make the first capture, knowing that the weaker face will then be shown.  Just a thought.  I like your setup and I'm willing to try that out and see if it works for starters.

I agree with your last two sentences very much.  However, I am seriously concerned about your extremely negative outlook on life and your hyperbolic views on just about everything.  The world is a terrible place, but your religion is certainly not the worst, your country is certainly not the worst, George Lucas certainly doesn't have our government by the throat, and there is a lot of good in this world.  I don't mean this to be condescending, but actually a matter of genuine concern.  I worry that your worldview is so negative that you might do something you would seriously regret.  I encourage you to look for the good in all things.  Just changing your perspective a bit can do wonders for seeing the beauty in everything.

Let me clarify the logic behind every move.  Orthogonal forward or backward moves are exactly as they would be on a 2D board.  Diagonal moves are translated into jumping moves.  An iron general moves orthogonally or diagonally forward in Dai Shogi.  The step forward is simply translated to a step forward.  But diagonally forward is translating into a jump to the second square.  Bishop moves then translate into jumping moves, skipping every other square, but needing the actual squares they "land on" to remain unobstructed.  Make sense?

Here is a link to the pdf I made years ago.  It has all color pictures, so it's easier to see what the moves are than on chessvariants.org.

http://www.4shared.com/office/0Zc6CMdLce/Ito_Shogi.html

The knight moves to the third square because a knight move may be best interpreted as a step forward, followed by a step diagonally forward.  Translated to 1D, that means a step forward, then a jump two squares, or a total jump of three squares.

The point of my piece layout was to allow four different pieces to make the first move.  But I already foresee a significant problem: once a first piece has moved, it blocks the square that many others would potentially move to, thus limiting the options for the second move.  I already am unhappy that I didn't think of this when I first designed the game, and I believe I would need to create gaps between some or all the pieces, change the layout, or allow the weaker faces (the face all the pieces show at the start of the game) allow more options for retreat.

I'm pretty busy, and though it's a simple game, I might not have time to make many moves for a while.  I don't even know what constitutes a good first move, so I'll just say IG-14 (going by the the numbers on the left column.

Why didn't I think of that?!  Brilliant!  I'll put together a mockup pronto.  I suggest you write the piece moves and their opposite faces with their moves off to the side as a reminder.  And as before, we should note when a piece is promoting and to what, so that we can keep each other on track.  I'd like to start the game with 22 cells (six cells between us).  We can also try a 23 cell game.  I also would hope to try a few other alternatives: possible different or additional pieces (I've been tempted to add a lion to the game, and I want to change the knight, but I'm not sure how best to do so yet).  Any ideas you have are extremely welcome.

^LOL

^^Wow.  I'm probably more of a straightforward viewer and believe the thing is supposed to be exactly as one would immediately expect, with a possible plot hole in place.  But your theory is very interesting.

Well, Christian doctrine and scripture does indeed teach that we are not our own, but that we were "bought with a price."  I do believe that God allows flexibility in nearly everything.  There is a time to kill, a time to dishonor one's father and mother, a time to lie, a time to steal, and I believe God understands these exceptions to his laws.  Christ taught that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter.  I am extremely anti-abortion, but I also see that there are times when it is best (albeit far rarer than abortion-rights supporters), do not see it as equally evil as murder(if I were to do so under most circumstances, I would see it as murder, but if another were to do so, I'd see it as sinning in relative ignorance--again, I bear in mind that there are appropriate occasions and do not presume to judge anyone here).  I understand that beating the dead horse gets old, so I see where you're coming from.  Perhaps they could have a sermon on the use of foul language next week ;)

Same with me for Ito.  I want to play, but I haven't made an appropriate set.  We could just try the software and see how it plays.  It's too small a board, but with our amateur abilities at the game (I am honestly no good, in spite of being the inventor), it probably won't make a noticeable difference.  Or we could just wait till tomorrow and I could throw together a crummy set.

I really enjoyed Chu, but I have had so many games I wanted to try, and that took so long that I hesitate to play another game just yet.

I ask frequently, but I really want to be sure, am I too hard a player?  It gets discouraging to continually lose, and I have beaten you in almost every game.  I can be competitive, but I don't want to do so at the expense of your fun.  I can play easier, coach you through positions more, make deliberate (but subtle) mistakes, accept handicaps, whatever, just because I'd hate to lose such an enjoyable gaming partner.

I also am interested in your thoughts on Chu.  I already asked, but now at the end of the game, have you developed any new insights or opinions?  I personally learned that the lion is not as amazing as I expected (and I'm glad for that).  If he breaks through, he can wreak havoc.  But if a player has two rook-type pieces protecting two adjacent ranks (these pieces should be well defended of course), then the lion simply cannot safely cross.  You had a pretty good defense against my lion for a while.  There were several dangerous squares, and you had at least one rank covered.  I simply couldn't get through in spite of my far superior forces by that point.  It was difficult to figure out how to tear down your wall.

If you wanted, we could just play another small game.  Dobutsu shogi is very small and simple.  Nana shogi could be fun.  I hear Tori Shogi is a great game.  We have many options if you want to go for another faster game.  I don't think I'd want to go bigger than Chu ever.  I doubt I would have the patience for a larger game, except maybe in person where we could finish in a single day.  But Wa Shogi is 11x11, and is fun with or without drops (as historically it is unclear whether or not the game was designed with them in mind).  I leave the choice up to you.

Thanks for being a good playing partner and a good sport.  You let me know what you think.  I want to be accommodating in all aspects. :)

Oh, he probably won't read this, but for Frink's sake I'll add, "ROAR!"

Lnx9jx8k#, which is technically checkmate.  I believe players continue till the king is actually captured, but it's a moot point.  Unless you really want to make the last two moves.

It was supposed to be exactly that: a random reference to another joke in Frink's thread, nothing more.  I know the only two people who would get it have already replied, but I just thought it would be funny.  Now I hang my head in shame.

Woah!  Ziggy!?  I told you there is a resurrection, Frink!

Ln-9i

I look forward to it.  I love recreating commercial games for cheap.  It might be hard to find two other players to actually play us, though.

It's all good.  Px5h

P-5g

Gosh, I've got such an advantage, and it's still impossible to get to you! R-5c

ROAR!!!

I'm actually pretty confident that that is your best move.

FKx6i

e6

I agree, there was a lot to like about Sandman.  I just feel his story was so disconnected that it really didn't fit into the rest of the film.  I wish a whole movie could focus more on him (not as Ben's killer, as you pointed out, but a potentially sympathetic villain), but this movie just didn't do any characters proper justice, most particularly Sandman.  I feel the No Sandman Edition managed to do amazingly well with the remaining plot threads, giving everyone else proportionally more time and placing better emphasis on the relationships of the various characters.  I really liked Redemption for improving the original plot, but I like this even better for changing it so drastically.

I'd be interested in seeing your edits whenever you get around to them.  Good luck.