SMIRF Engine: Here is the original post from November last year.

WhisperzQ: Thank you !

WhisperzQ: Thank you for the link! Now it is double clear, that there has been a request for 8x8 variants

SMIRF Engine: To say the truth, I had initially also made the same request for 10x8 variants, but I have already received a lot more that could fit into the Encyclopedia.

nabla: 2 of my games which can be published.

[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest381"]
[Black "zhong"]
[BlackElo "2908"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[TimeControl "3+0"]

1. f3 d5 2. Kf2 g6 3. Ke3 Bg7 4. Kf4 Qd6+ 5. Ke3 Qb6+ 6. d4 e5 7. Kf2 exd4 8. Na3 Nf6 9. e3 dxe3+ 10. Bxe3 c5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. c4 O-O 13. Ne2 Bxb5 14. cxb5 d4 15. Bd2 Nbd7 16. Qb3 Rfe8 17. Nc4 Qe6 18. Nf4 Qe7 19. Rhe1 Qf8 20. Nd3 Rxe1 21. Rxe1 Re8 22. Rxe8 Qxe8 23. Nd6 Qe7 24. Nxb7 Nh5 25. Qa4 Nb6 26. Qxa7 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.04.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest71"]
[Black "Beber {IM Robert Fontaine}"]
[BlackElo "2827"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
[TimeControl "3+0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Ke2 Nc6 3.Ke3 g6 4.Nc3 Nd4 5.d3 Nf6 6.Kd2 d5 7.Ke1 Bg7 8.h3 O-O 9.a3 e5 10.Bg5 Be6 11.exd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.c3 Ne6 14.Be3 Rad8 15.Qa4 e4 16.dxe4 Nxe4 17.Rc1 a6 18.Be2 b5 19.Qxa6 c4 20.Rd1 Qf5 21.Nf3 Nxc3 22.bxc3 Bxc3+ 23.Nd2 Nc5 24.Bxc5 Bxd2+ 25.Rxd2 Rxd2 26.Kxd2 Rd8+ 27.Kc1 Qe5 28.Bxc4! Qc3+? 29.Kb1 bxc4 30.Rc1 Qb3+ 31.Ka1 Rd2 32.Qc8+ Kg7 33.Bf8+ Kf6 34.Qc6+ Kf5 35.Qc5+ Kf6 36.Qe7+ Kf5 37.Qxf7+ Kg5 38.Be7+ Kh6 39.Qf8+ Kh5 40.g4# 1-0

JinkyOng: What variants are these?

grenv: The game is chess. The play is not chess. The result against strong players in 3 minute blitz game is art.

JinkyOng: Chess? Not chess? Perhaps these games should be submitted to the editors of the ARTLEX or Grove art dictionaries. :)

JinkyOng: I guess you tried to show and prove that your superiority is enough to win even by playing incredibly stupid moves at the opening and losing many tempo's and destroying your King safety at all....
And you succedded in doing that, against all these considered strong players that they have proven to be only some weakies for you, right....?

JinkyOng:
at least you could have chosen some games which were not published previously:
The third coming of Bobby Fischer?

Someone: Who has deleted JinkyOngs original post with his two games? Now there are four further posts who don't make sense anymore. In my eyes either his post has to be restored or all subsequent ones have to de deleted as well.

Someone Else: You have asked why I'm sure that JinkyOng isn't Bobby Fischer, but you also deleted your post. Well, I didn't say that, I was just linking to an article where one of JinkyOngs games has been discussed. But now I'm not sure anymore about his identity because I've received a mail which makes it more probable that he is him:

[quote]
Read message

From: JinkyOng
Date and time: 31. March 2006, 17:52:57
Subject: jew

Meine Kampf, read it.
[/quote]

JinkyOng: It has to be "Mein" instead of "Meine"

kleineme:

I guess anything is possible, although Fischer always has been real careful about his privacy and I don't think he would be that overt in letting his real identity be known.

Those Internet Chess Games were always speculation as to whether Fischer played them or not. Something like an urban legend among chess players.

kleineme: JinkyOng's posts have been restored (they were only temporarily hidden) after one derogeratory post was deleted.

WhisperzQ

Marfitalu: Good question, there is no outstanding reason for it, the main reason was simplicity.
I thought about three possibilities :
- The more natural one seems to consider castling as a king move. Then castling is ambiguous can always be replaced by a rook move, and the right to castle would in fact be a disadvantage for the player who can castle. For this reason I don't like this one.
- Consider castling as a two-piece move, hence unambiguous. This is now perfectly sound. But we would also have to state whether it is possible to castle under or through check. As the straightforward set of rules state that check does not exist and that the goal is to take the king, one would have to allow that. Personally I don't like at all the possibility to castle under or through check, like it is the case here in Atomic and Extinction. But this is probably a matter of taste.
- Banning castling is simple, clear-cut, easy to implement and can be phrased in very few words. That is what I like about it :-)

PS Someone composed a retrograde analysis problem of Unambiguous Chess, a variant I invented before Ambiguous Chess, where ambiguous moves are simply illegal (this variant is less playable but fun for problem composition). He asked me whether he could state that castling was an allowed unambiguous move, as his problem needed it, and I told him it was OK with me.