ughaibu: I unbanned you right after becoming moderator back in August, wasn't it? I remember sending you a message saying so. You replied that you weren't going to use this board any more, but did thank me for unbanning you.
Hi, and welcome back.

Caissus: That's too bad, as I can't read German. Oh well. I like Janus Chess, though I'm still having problems playing it better. The game is harder than it looks. Them sneaky Januses. :)

Caissus: Does the Janus Chess site have an English link?

Ol' fencer is thinking of merger this board with that one. The games are almost the same from a surface look anyway. They certainly play a lot differently than each other though. I suppose if you're just going to talk about Janus Chess without any connection to Gothic Chess you might as well take it to the Janus board. You are just talking about the sets and pieces themselves and it seems relevant to me.

Caissus: I'm in there, let's rumble. :)

You're in for a surprise. The game is lots different. Least ways, it is for me. Them Januses (Archbishops in Gothic Chess) are different when there's two of them for each player. I suppose if you're playing a game and you trade one for one early in the game it'll go like a game Gothic Chess without the Chancellors in many ways, but the starting position is different and castling is slightly different.
The Januses can work together like same colored Bishops, too. Plus after making a Knight type move, they can have a Bishop backing them up along a diagonal in a way that the Chancellor can't. I've been burned a number of times this way.
Still, if you're good at Gothic Chess, you should have no problem learning Janus Chess. Probably spank me good when our game comes up. :(

Always nice when someone knows what they're talking about. I was just winging it from my short visit to the site. Since you're now the new poster over there, I've deleted the reference to it in my previous post. Is the game use of the Miranda IM a new feature of it?

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Janus Chess. It's seems to be some sort of game enabler for internet play. Perhaps you can go there and check for yourself. The rest of the post seem to concern bugs and use of the program. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xx

Janus 1.0.9 (1.0 epsilon)

Download
21378 Downloads | 274.46KBytes
Install using Miranda Installer


Updated:
06/04/2004 05:04:20
Screenshot View

Publisher ai91
Date added 28/02/2004 03:11:27
Requirements
License Freeware
Source code None Available

Description
Janus is a games-plugin for popular instant-messengers Miranda, Trillian and &RQ.
It allows to play some games with your friends over the internet.
Games currently implemented: Chess, Reverse, Corners, International checkers, Russian checkers and Pool checkers

I currently have four games on the "Waiting games" page if any of you reading this would like to play a game or two. If they're all gone by the time you read this, please feel free to send an invitation or a message. I generally need three or four days for a time limit in case I have to be away, but I almost always move once or more a day.

OK, I've imagine that. As I said, I value him just under a Knight. How can you seperate the loss of him costing you the game from how strong a piece he is? Even in doing so, I still value him as I've said. I'd like to know how it is that you value him stronger than a Knight or Bishop?

I meant the actual pieces themselves, not the representations of them. Grand Chess used to have a webpage up and it had a page of the chess sets for the game that they made and sold. I thought it cool how they made the Marshall and Cardinal. Easy to tell which piece they were, plus nice looking sets too.
As for you symbols. I suppose the two swords is a gatekeeper, but I don't like it much. That link to the chess variant's page of Grand Chess had better looking representations than the one I'm used to seeing on their site.

Since when was the King valued as 4 Pawns? I've always played him as just under the Knight in strength. He covers eight squares maximum like a Knight, but it takes him 7 moves to cross the board. Plus, his vulnerablity makes him a target and he can't be traded. Definitely not a stronger piece than a Knight or Bishop. Or am I reading that chart incorrectly?

I like the pictures of the Chess sets for Grand Chess. Perhaps you could have them send you the pieces and order two extra Cardinals with your set. Then you could play Janus Chess, Bird's Chess, Capablanca Chess, and Gothic Chess on a 8 X 10 board and Grand Chess on a 10 X 10 board, by selecting the right pieces and set-up to use.

I'm not sure what all this stuff means, but I'd certainly like to play 8 X 10 variants on my computer. Is that what this stuff does?

netguru. I posted those very moves awhile back. Though the starting position for Bird's Chess is a matter of contention as to where the Guard and Equerry are placed at the start of the game. I used the version from the Chess Variants web page, which Ed Trice dubbed "Wrong Bird's Chess". Assuming you're using Ed's set up for Bird's Chess, I thought it would take 7 moves to transpose the game into Gothic Chess. You say it's five? It has been my assertion about the game being a subset of the other. It was shortly after that post an immense flame war started. It also got some interesting conversation about both games going, so you'll have to wade through a lot different posts to see which apply to your interest. Starts October 14th.

Capablanca Chess was created about 50 years after Bird's Chess in the 1920's. I believe Bird made his game up in 1874. Gothic Chess in the late 1990's. To me, all are the same game. Same pieces, same rules. The starting position greatly effects the play at the beginning of the game, but after 15 or 20 moves it'd be hard to tell which game is which if you chanced upon a game in progress.

It takes awhile to read 58 posts, but then it's only a few minutes. ThomasBarnes posted things he shouldn't have and is now banned. He had plenty of time to edit them and didn't. Thad is no longer a moderator. I made a mistake in choosing him over bwildman, and I can't undo it now. bwildman is no longer interested in being a moderator. Cerebro was mentioned to me by an opponent of mine in Gothic Chess. It turns out that I had played him a few months back and he seemed level headed, balanced, and liked to play Gothic Chess. I wrote him and asked if he'd like to try being a moderator on this discussion board. He said he'd give it a try. I'm impressed with him so far. He's done nothing and taken no actions as yet. Imagine that, all that power at his finger tips and he's touched no buttons! I think that's a good start and perhaps we'll have the moderator that some have been clammoring for. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean they won't be a good moderator or that we can't work together. He's still studying the old posts and reading the current ones, I assume. After he does his research of the old files we'll work out some ground rules.

I might yet switch the MODE to "Approve all posts" as has been suggested in some recent posts. I think a really helpful option for Fencer to add to the moderator's toolbox would be one that allows certain users to be placed on approved messages only. It could be placed next to the Banned and Hidden users windows are. The way it's set up now, it's all or none. The overwhelming majority of posters cause no problems with their posts and add to the dialogue in the discussion boards. Those few that cause trouble really make it bad for everyone else. It forces the moderators to either put up with everything or completely restrict everything. Yes, banning the trouble makers will work, but not when some of the banned people have a vocal group of supporters that flame the board the moment that action is taken.

I'm going to post a lot less often or very rarely to this board for now on. That should allay the concerns of those that I worried when I carried on the other day. Someone, harley it is, mentioned making mistakes. I certainly have made some of late. This way of communicating is lots different than talking to someone face to face or on the telephone. I'm learning quick. Apparently this board has created a stir in other places, just from the sudden appearance of people that haven't posted here at all or in a long time.

This board is for Gothic Chess and related subjects. Patents in and of themselves are not what this board is about. Gothic Chess being unique in the respect that it is patented and the game itself has a history of how it came into being has caused the two subjects to come together in a clash of wills on the subject. Ed has a proprietary stake involved and feels he must guard it. Seeing how some companies have lost their trademark or patent from not doing so, it's hard to fault him for it. (Like the name, Aspirin, for example). Some of my posts about it have certainly shaken that up, especially when others have given their opinion on it that furthers the discussion against his ownership of it. Why he threatens lawsuits when all that we're doing is talking is beyond me, but that more or less is what all the recent commotion on this board has been about. Aside from this last post concerning my interpretation of recent events, I will no longer post about patents. I hope this helps with the flaming. And since I will rarely post at all from now on, I know it'll help. I will continue to moderate this board for the time being. I have mentioned to Fencer that I might step down from the job. I have more or less enjoyed the job, though it certainly has some drawbacks. In a week or two we'll see how it goes and I'll let you all know. I asked one other person yesterday if he'd like to try his hand at it. After I got home from work today, I had received two replies from him. The first said yes, he'd give it a go. The second one said he'd reconsidered and was turning it down. Perhaps the 53 messages between the two letters got him thinking? So it'll be Cerebro and I for the time being.

Thank you for your support and understanding,
Walter

Cerebro is now a moderator.

Yes, my behavior of late has not been well indeed. I've fallen into the trap I was trying my hardest to avoid. It's frustrating for me, but hey it happens.

I will become a quiet moderator.
No more posts from me.
No more ideas from me.
No more throwing more wood on the fire.
No more anything except if bad or foul language is used.
My last post will be the site link for Ed's lawsuit. After that, you can have your way until I hear from Fencer, Thad. As for unbanning Ed, get serious. I will moderate without posting unless directly asked to and even then I may not post to the board.

Good bye and keep it clean.

Assuming Ed is right about bwildman wanting me removed, Thomas Barnes just put in his 2¢ for it as he just stated. That makes 8 for my removal and 3 for my retention. I also vote for myself. So that's 4 for me staying. After the count gets to say a hundred concerned people maybe we can do something about it.

From: EdTrice - reading message
Date and time: 24. October 2004, 16:09:05
Subject: The link to my lawsuit against you...

...will be posted noon on Moday. They will be able to see a PDF of the docket. They will be able to see your name. Fencer will give me the address information he has on you, and you will be required to come cross country and prove that I am wrong, that you are marketing something else.

You asked for it, I have members already preparing their notorized depositions.

Have fun Walter

===========================================
As you can see, he really says he's going to sue me.
============================================
====
EdTrice (2434) Re: Ed? 24. October 2004, 15:45:18
Modified by EdTrice (24. October 2004, 15:47:22)
I will have you served. Your text has already been sent to:

Fencer, my attorneys at D,B & R, and my patent agent contact at the USPTO. Even if you do not go through with it, you expressed malcontent and willful defiance, enough for me to go after you for "emotional distress."

See you in court Walter. Hope you have about $100,000 sitting around, this is what it will cost you
===============================================
=
Along with this previous post, I must conclude that I'm quite confused. If his threats are valid, what does he expect to gain? If he is a blowhard, he's picked the wrong person to push around. $100,000. Yeah, sure, I'll just cut you a check my son. I'll be waiting for them papers. When he posts the link, I'll post it here and then the court of public opinion can have first crack at it. My life has been pretty dull lately. Going to court for a patent infringement lawsuit sounds like fun. My neighbors will be quite impressed to see me on the evening news defending myself against a game "inventor". Since I have no money I'll have to search around for a lawyer that'll take the case for free and see what happens. I sure hope he sent his lawyers my posts. They'll look at him and withhold their laughter and tell him he has no case. If they take the case, it'll be Ed's money going down the drain, not mine. This is starting to cause me a lot of emotional distress. I'm trying to have fun with it, but you never really know who you're dealing with here on the internet.

ScarletRose, if there's one person here who's doing the provoking it would be you. As for a feeling of power, I'm feeling rather weak right now. Nothing I say or do falls on Ed's deaf ears. So I'll take the hard line as he would do. It ain't the first time he's been banned from this board. If there's not a pattern or history of him being a problem shown through these actions, I guess you're oblivious to it. I've tried what I consider logical and well stated opinions on a subject. I've also tried to interject humor or analogies into some of my other posts only to have them picked apart and completely turned on their head. Now I'm being threatened with a lawsuit from some blowhard that you say is a nice guy and all he does is stir up trouble. He had his say. Let him take it Fencer. In the meantime, I'm banning you too.

Because of being sued, I'm banning Ed.

ScarletRose. I never said I would market Gothic Chess. I said I would market an interchangable board going from 8 X 8 to 10 X 10 squares and would supply extra pieces to play Bird's Chess and Ultima. How you or I guess Ed have misconscrued that into some sort of patent infringement lawsuit is beyond me.

Sounds like a implied threat to me. Actually it sounds quite blatant. Supposing you had my address, just what are you planning on doing with it?

Yawn. OK, OK, I'll write the patent office and find out what the deal is and why they granted you the patent. Perhaps I'll spend the $2600 or so it takes to fight the patent, but I really don't see what's in it for me, even if I was to win. I suppose I might get some satisfaction in watching you eat crow, but is it worth the time and effort for me? And what if you're right? I'll have wasted my time and money. Instead I think next year I'll finish the garage and instead of the welder and metal working equipment I was going to put in it, I'm going to get wood working equipment and start putting out chess boards and sets. After I start to market them (Interchangable 8 X 8, 8 X 10, and 10 X 10 boards, with lots of extra pieces to play lots of games like Bird's Chess and Ultima), I'll post to this board where they might be purchased at, then you can get your court order delivered to me Ed and I'll read it at my leisure as I profit from my craft and see that my lawyers have the ability to get a cease and desist order on you.

I said I had stopped talking about the patent unless someone else comments on it. As you'll notice, all these things that Ed has chosen and picked from are dated October 15th or earlier. And how 'bout that link that Ed shows in the long post attacking me? It goes to an article written by himself!

Not one of your points Ed show why I'm a bad moderator. They just show that you dislike me being the moderator. You even quote me when the whole context of one of the quotes was in support of your patent. And so what if I make mistakes. We can't all be perfect like you. But hey, perfection ain't all it's cracked up to be, is it? Now when are you going to show us those court cases and get the matter resolved. I already said I'd apologize and get on with life after they come to light. Yet, you call me names and say other things in your posts (hand holding, wallowing, let's remove Walter campaign, obfuscate the issue with meaningless links to the patent office, and other things). IS it because they don't exist? Surely you can direct me to the court itself and I can read it myself?

I'll stick to using the word people when I type, but now I'll know what you mean when I see the word.

ScarletRose, I never made anti-Gothic Chess remarks aside from the naming of it and the ownership question. The game itself is a great game. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right? Why should that be grounds for removal? You can disagree with me, but that's your opinion. It surely isn't nitpicking if it elicits some of the responses I've seen from you and others. Why be so defensive about it? So now you've gotten know him on a more personal level. I haven't, and I also haven't done anything to attack him, either. Unless you consider disagreeing and debating attacking. Then yes, I've mortally wounded him. :)
Perhaps when Ed responds with the court decisions and we can read about the cases it'll calm the whole issue down. As for your defending Ed's previous moderation of this board, you've really glossed over how he ran it and treated people. Especially those he disagrees wtih or dislikes.

By the way, what are "peeps"? Sounds like quite the conspiracy to me. I must have missed some interesting times back them.

bwildman, I think you misinterpreted what I wrote in my clumsy style of writing about not being moderator any more in reference to a message I received from Thad. It is I that he was talking about not being moderator any more, not him. As far as I know he wants to be a moderator and hasn't said anything to me about resigning.

Oh, Ed, could you direct me to these rulings? I'd certainly like to read them. If they prove that you're right about the patent and ownership of Gothic Chess, I'll be apologizing to you and anyone else that'll listen. If they're just court orders issued to subdue a person who then complied without fighting the orders that will not end my disagreement about it.
Until and if ever I decide to take more than a passing enterest in the whole affiar, I was mainly going to drop the subject except on the occasion of someone else posting to this board about the subject.

I certainly will.
Since when was disagreeing with Ed against the law? I like this game that Ed calls "Gothic Chess". Disagreeing over the ownership of it is completely different than saying the game is a bad game and trying to stop its spread. If anything a controversy over things like this can make something newsworthy and help disseminate awareness of it.
Ed, you've had your chance at moderating this board. Twice! What happened? So you don't like me as moderator and are forced to go some other route to get me removed as I doubt a direct appeal from you to Fencer would have much effect. I've stopped posting my reservations about your patent and Bird's Chess, but I suppose you have to do what you have to do. You start a behind the scenes petition and then say it's my doing? Have it your way.

As for bwildman's question, we'll see how Thad responds, if he does. My first inclination when I saw it posted this morning was to delete it, but I figured I might as well let it stay and see what kind of responses it makes. I'll know where I and some others stand soon enough.

You know, bwildman, after you mentioned this stuff in a game we have going, I contacted a few of the peole and they me. Thad mentioned to me about not being moderator any more, but as far as I can tell it is you that are starting the remove Walter campaign. As you seem to have missed noticing the discussion board has been on topic and without rudeness of late regardless of the conversation. If you're right that Thad or Ed wants me removed, let them deal with it. I think I've done all right as moderator, but I'm sure others can do it too.... Just not you.

It will honor the true creator of the game, plus it should end all the bickering about patents and what not. All sites could have it. There'd be no licensing fees, royalties to pay, or granting of permission to acquire. The game itself would be free to expand and become better known without the strangling hold of a central power. If I'm to believe some of what Ed has said about him wanting to improve on Chess, he should want this and he'd still get credit for promoting the game. Plus his organization has a leg up on FIDE and the USCF and he should be able to stay in control of tournaments and associations. Of course, if the Chess playing public abandons regular Chess in favor of Bird's Chess, I imagine those organizations will really give Ed a fight for their turf.
I haven't been to a Chess club in over twenty-five years. I remember setting up the board to play Ultima and having the people there give us some funny looks while we played our game. I wonder if I brought a 10 X 8 board and set up a game of Bird's Chess if I'd get any players?

As to the name of the game, it doesn't make sense to call it Gothic Chess. Can you imagine if Henry Bird heard his game called that?

There's one thing you might be overlooking about the enforcement of foreign patents: treaties.
It is possible that our governments have worked out a deal covering this situation.

I'd say section "c" would preclude him from winning patent approval as it expressly mentions games. Obviously that's not the case here in United States.

It's hard to imagine that he'd be able to get a court to pull the plug on BrainKing for that reason. Plus Fencer and/or others might be able to get the patent overturned if it was to go to court.
Andreas, why do you say that the rules or game isn;t patentable in Europe? Different laws, or some other reason?

Are you sure? What's the point of having a United Europe if each state has seperate patenting laws? That'd be like California having different patent laws than Nevada. Though in fairness, a lot of California's laws are different than Nevada's, let alone Utah's! :) Hmmm, well, federalism has pluses and minuses. The ninth and tenth admendments to the United States constitution deal with the powers of each state and how they relate to the Federal governemnt. I'm sure the powers that be and other interested parties are duking it out in Europe over the very thing. I suppose it's all in the details and who has the sovereignty when it all gets worked out. I'm just glad I don't have to go through customs each time I cross state lines on the way to Canada and my United States money spends in each state without having to be exchanged. Though California has the Agriculture stop point on the way back. It's been there since atleast the 1930's. I saw it in a movie called the "Grapes of Wrath".
If Ed gets a European Patent, I'm sure you'll be the first to know.

Fencer certainly could do as I've suggested with Bird's and Modern Bird's Chess. The first thing he'd have to do is have a different name for the game, if only to cut down on confusion as the where and who's in charge of it.
The game itself is a good game, regardless of what name it or the pieces have. Since Bird invented the game, I think it should be named in honor of him. Let Ed promote it and make his money, but give credit where credit is due. As for the licensing stuff, I doubt if we'll ever really find the true answer about the patenting and rights because it doesn't seem like there's that much money in it. Even if the courts completely side with Ed, how much could he win? Would he really want people to not make the game and incourage others to play it?
I think this discussion board should be expanded from just this one version of 10 X 8 Chess and the Marshall/Chancellor/Guard/Knight+Rook and Cardinal/Archbishop/Equerry/Knight+Bishop to include the other versions that have the same pieces and board or close enough to it. It'd also be nice if the site had the option to play the various versions of the games. The games I have in mind are Gothic Chess, Bird's Chess, Modern Bird's Chess, Grand Chess, and Capablanca Chess. I suppose the original, granddy version should be here as well, Carrera's Chess.

Caissus, it seems like someone a few months ago raised the same question you just posed. Couldn't Ed just get a patent in Europe? Or will they not grant a patent to a game that's a hundred old and almost an exact copy of it as they've done here in the United States?

Orgasnizing tournaments. Getting people to play a game. Getting the game sets made.
All of this is great, but the means doesn't justify the ends in my eyes. He could have done all of this without even getting the patent. So why have a patent? Why not do it just like FIDE or American Contract Bridge League? Have your groupd and organize you tournaments and play. Copyright the rules and welcome people to play your game.

I'm not opposed to the game. It's a great game. I'm opposed to someone controlling it that isn't the true inventor of it. He's a great promoter of it, but not the inventor. The game is over a hundred years old. As you can see from my post about how the set up and rules are identical to it, why should he profit in the manner he's trying to? Let alone impose his will upon others that disagree with him? If he's truly right about his ownership of the game, then my apologies will be coming and my understanding of fairness will need a re-adjustment.

<>EdTrice (2434) 14. October 2004, 20:06:15

If you really believe what you say, send me your address. Show me a Gothic Chess set you made, and say you are going to sell sets. Otherwise, you are full of it.<
==================
Ed, the Grand Chess sets have been made for years. Perhaps you are the one that's doing the patent infringement? And surely you don't claim to have a patent on a 10 X 8 chess board, do you?
================================
>I won two cases already regarding patent infringement.
Here is a third, settled out of court just this week.

exhibit b

exhibit c<
================================
As for the rest of the post, I think I will contact the people you've listed herein and find out just what kind of dealings they're having with you and direct them to this discussion board for their opinions.
===================================
&
gt;If you don't believe me, call Derek Nalls at 580-223-2226 in Ardmore Oklahoma and ask him yourself.

Maybe you should tell Fencer he does not need a license to run Gothic Chess on here, and tell Cowboy on CowPlay.com he does not need one, and tell Frank Camarrata of HouseOfStaunton.com he did not need one, and Micheal Grey of Hasbro he did not need one.

Mike Grey is the VP of Research & Development for Hasbro, a 3.9 billion dollar per year firm, and their legal team agrees they need a license.

But not you Walter. You are smarter than the rest of the world, aren't you?

=============================
Yes, I'll tell Fencer and anyone else that'll listen to me that I don't think your patent is worth the paper it's written on. That doesn't mean they'll listen to me, though. I'm just some knucklehead out in left field with his own opinion of how history is. What do I matter to the world when someone such as yourself is trying to make it big by exploiting the system and harrassing people with lawyers and lawsuits protecting a hundred year old idea that you somehow received a patent on? Hasbro? Yeah, now there's a good place to start. They should know if you have a leg to stand on, or if I'm an idiot and should leave well enough alone. I let you know how my research goes and also what some of those people you've talked about say concerning you and "Gothic Chess"

Let's play a forced move version of Bird's Chess. This forcing of opening moves is simular in concept to how some Checker tournaments are held by requiring the opening moves to be forced upon the players to keep the game from becoming stale or over-studied. This version will be called "Modern Bird's Chess". Bird's Chess is a game made up in 1874 by Henry Bird. His game is actually a pretty good game that would be a fine substitute for this Gothic Chess that seemily has the power to distroy all opposition to it. Anyway, I propose a new version of Bird's Chess and am calling it Modern Bird's Chess. In this version of Bird's Chess each player's first four moves are determined before the start of the game. If you're familiar with Gothic Chess's set up, put the pieces in the same places except that the Queen is placed next to the King on E1, the Guard (Known as Chancellor in Gothic Chess) is placed on D1, the Equerry (Archbishop in Gothic chess) is on G1. This is slightly different from how Ed has Bird's Chess in his article sited earlier (He has the Guard and Equerry on each other's respective squares), but I went to the chessvariants site figuring Ed isn't the only authority on Bird's Chess. In fact, from this set up, you'll notice that all's Gothic Chess is is Bird's Chess with the Queen and Chancellor in switched positions! I shall call the pieces by their Gothic Chess names though Guard and Equerry are just as good as any other names. We've gotten used to the names from playing Gothic Chess and this is a Gothic Chess discussion board.
OK, with the pieces set up as shown on the chessvariants.com site, the players must make the following four moves and then may play as they'd like. C= Guard and A= Equerry.
White------- Black
1. C d1-c3..... C d8-c6
2. Q e1-d1..... Q e8-d8
3. C c3-d3..... C c6-d6
4. C d3-e1..... C d6-e8

After these moves have been made, the regular rules for Bird's Chess shall appply. (As far as I can tell they are identical to Gothic Chess' rules. Real innovation there, Ed.)

What do you think, Fencer? Could we get rid of Gothic Chess and replace it with Bird's Chess and the Modern Bird's Chess variation? I'm sure you could just put them together on one web page and let the players decide which version to play. The Modern Bird's version would play just like Gothic Chess after the fourth move and people that like the different starting position would be happy. Of course, you could just put Bird's Chess on and people could play it as is or could agree to make certain opening moves before having free choice, just as Checkers does.

mindsports web page and follow the links to Grand Chess.
Sorry about that

Grand Chess already has the pieces designed and made.
http://www.mindsports.net/DownLoad/Noware/
GrandChess.ht
I suppose you could order the set from them and cover up two of the rows to the board from 10 X 10 to 8 X 10. I like the design and names of the Marshall and Cardinal, which correspond to the Chancellor and Archbishop. You could just use the pieces from the set on an 8 X 10 board also. I wonder what Ed's design looks like?
Ordering information:
http://www.mindsports.net/DownLoad/
No
$49 for the set seems like a reasonable price for the quality of the pieces. The board is another $39. I think I still might make one myself and just order the chess set.

I notice Ed didn't answer the part about Checkers, did he?

You might be right about Monopoly and Clue, but you are quite wrong about Battleship. Monopoly is based on copywritten stuff and propietary rules. I'm not sure about Clue. As for Battleship, anyone can sell it. They may or may not be able to call it Battleship, but they can certainly sell it. Just as this site has Battleboats. A la Othello / Reversi. Gothic Chess is in the same class as Reversi. There's no copyright on the rules or play, just the name of the game. I certainly could too make and sell sets of it without your permission. Maybe not call it Gothic Chess, (A name I don't like for this game, but have grown accustomed too), how would you stop me from doing so? Your patent is bull, and we all know it. The patent office might have taken your money and issued you a patent, but it'll never stand up in court. The game is over 100 years old. Changing the initial starting position doesn't make it a new game. It makes it a modification of prior art. None of the pieces are designed by you. In fact, they all predate your birth by many decades or centuries! Same thing for the board and playing rules. You even say the rules are the same as for regular Chess! You site Bird's version of 1875 in an article written by you about Gothic Chess at http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/GothicChessIntro.htm
I, or any game manufacturer could start making Bird's Chess sets and sell them. You just try and get licensing fees for it. Who are you trying to fool? I could enclose with the rules a mention of different starting positions and variants. It'd be cool to make the board be adjustable in size so one could play different games on it, plus throw in extra pieces too.
Since you say you're an expert Checkers player, I assume that you're familiar with playing Checkers where the game is not started from the initial position, but instead the players are given certain moves to make first and then are free to make whatever moves they want? Is that game still Checkers, or should I patent it and demand royalties and licensing fees as you have done for Bird's Chess? This is how it appears to me as to what you have done. Amazingly to me, you have gotten a lot of people to go along with you.

As for you not arguing on this board about it, or telling me where to send my messages, too bad. I like this forum very much and with you not in the moderator's chair others can have a say in it, especially those that disagree with you and your position. And that's whether or not they're knowledgable about patent law or have access to attorneys either.

2¢

The only thing that you own is the name Gothic Chess. The pieces are already designed in Grand Chess. Very nice I might add, check out their site though the game is played on a 10 X 10 board the pieces used are identical to the ones in Gothic Chess and the game is from the 1970's. The 8 X 10 board is over a hundred years old. Why would I, or anyone else need your permission to make and sell game sets that could be used to play Gothic Chess or any other version of Chess?

That's what Thad wrote to me. I've asked one person so far, but he declined unless it becomes absolutely necessary to have another moderator. Thad's a little quicker than me with the editor's eraser and I told him a few things to go along with my thinking, but he's still able to make the call when the need arises.
I'll still tally responses to that previous post and try to keep a list of possible moderators. If Thad or I have to leave or stop using this site for some reason, it will be helpfull to have replacements in mind. So far no one has written me about nominating someone or suggesting themselves for the job. On the board itself, Ed Trice has been nominated and has been dished on. It might take a few weeks to see how it goes. Just the two us might be enough. It didn't work too bad when I was doing it by myself. Had I not had both computers breakdown and then my truck breakdown 300 miles from home, I might've not been missing so much during those two or three weeks when it all came to a head and would have been available to read the posts and monitor the situation better. Oh well, the water has flown by the bridge and this is where we're at now. :)

What you've done to my square counting idea is not what I had in mind. I'm looking at the numbers that you've posted and figuring you must've pretended each piece was on every square on the board and totaled the square counts that way. That's almost exactly what the Safe Check deal is. What I am thinking is the relative strength of the pieces as to where the will normally be deployed. Rare will it be that one will choose to play to the corner or edge a piece that is greatly lowered in movement there unless forced to do so. Since a Rook is equally mobile on every square it might be the exception to that. As for your conclusion that a Bishop is weaker than a Knight doing the counting this way, did you take into consideration that a Bishop can only travel on half the squares? Perhaps you should double its count for a more accurate estimate. Or some other way. Hmmm, it seems like the pieces that can move diagonal are the ones that have the most variable count and really are stronger when placed towards the center of the board. The pieces that have the Knight component without the diagonal move vary less. As soon as they're two squares from the edge they're at full range. OF course, two squares from the edge can be considered in the middle of the board. Just one square from the edge and they have full range minus two squares. A Knight having just one way of moving, has slow going on the larger board. The Knight's move itself is pretty handy when in close and has the benefit of not being able to be blocked.

I'm thinking that game experience and judgment might give a player a better guide than simple assigning a value to pieces. It's still nice to have a chart with the relative values just to assist in making trades and planning ahead. Especially for beginning players a chart can be of great help. Since the strengths and weaknesses of each piece change from move to move as the game progresses a better approach has to be to learn the game and get more experience. Least ways that's what I'm trying to do. I almost have the hang of how each piece works and am getting better at making longer range plans and detecting my opponent's intentions. The two extra pieces are quite strong and make the game more volitile the regular Chess even taking into account the larger board size. The one constant that remains is the King and the object of the game. Having more power on the board has definitely got to put him in more peril. Why range the whole board to count squares when one usually just focuses on the opponent's King and can concentrate one's forces in his area? If the game survives to the end game stage it is going to be more of a wide body Chess game than a completely different game that exists in the opening and middle parts.

The Safe Check method seems like a rather hard way to figure the strength and power of each piece. Why not just compare how many squares each piece can cover in one move? Obviously some of the piece's positions when doing the counting will have a great impact on the total, but some sort of average can be figured into it. It seems like the value that is assigned in regular Chess should be adjusted to the game situation. That's what I do when deciding to make a trade or not. Sometimes a well placed Knight is worth almost a Rook. Especially when the position is blocked with lots of Pawns and both sides have a Bishop to keep the Pawns guarded.

A Rook's total number of squares that it can move to on an empty board doesn't change regardless of where placed. Always 14. On the 8 X 10 board a Rook has 16 squares to move to regardless of placing. All the rest of the pieces gain squares to move to as they get away from the edge of the board. The Chancellor and Archbishop are interesting to compare to each other this way. A Chancellor can have as few as 18 squares and as many as 24 on the 8 X 10 board. The Archbishop as few as 9 and as many as 22. It seems from just casually looking at this analysis that the Archbishop is a piece to try to get into the center of the board and keep it there or near there, and the Chancellor can stay away from the center and still have good range. More Rooklike than Knightlike. Both of them are trouble against the opponent's King. The Archbishop seems to work real well against the King when the position is cramped with its ability to move diagonal and get around the Pawns with its Knight move too.
This is what I've figured out so far. Still learning. :)

It turns out that I can change the moderators. You've been relieved of your duties bwildman. Seems like you wanted me to do this, so there it is. If not, let me know. As for danoschek, I never wanted him back on this particular board while I was a moderator, so I will leave your decision to ban him intact bwildman.

This being a 24 hour medium, and me only going online for an hour or two a day except on somedays when I'm here all day or other times when I'm away for four days, it means the board isn't covered or moderated continually. A few of my Gothic Chess playing opponents might want to take the moderator's job. One or two more, especially in the right time zones or work shifts could keep the board covered over half the time and then there won't be a need to change it to having all posts approved by me. I don't like that way of doing it, but if most of the users and posters to this board would rather have me read incoming posts before they appear on the board, let me know. I can change the setting to that and see how it goes. As I've stated before, I think it will ruin the character of this board, but it will certainly cut down or out the flaming and cussing.
Also, if you'd like to be a moderator, or know someone that might make a good moderator, send me a message. I have a couple in mind and will run it by them in a few days. It's mostly a thankless job, and you must control yourself from being too controlling of others.
Freedom is something you can't have unless you're willing to let others have it.
I prefer working with people that share my philosophy on censorship and don't mind seeking a consensus on making changes to the settings or to the people allowed to post. Though as it currently stands, I have the power to do as I please until there's popular uprising and the overlord steps in to rectify the situation. I'm trying to be a benevolent dictator and just let things flow. Please don't assume that my attitude is one of benign neglect. I may not be online as much as some of you, but I will eventually respond to things that are envelope pushing or rude in nature. Debating and arguing are fine by me, fighting isn't.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

The grammar link even has cats for its examples! How'd you ever find that redsales?

I think the Queen is almost always the best piece on the board. Only a particular position would make me trade away a Queen for a different piece.