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.

This means I'll have to ask Fencer to ban you. In the meantime, please refrain from posting cuss words on the site. Thanks.
your welcome

OK, you're turn. You're banned bwildman.
I see you didn't edit the cuss word out of your post, so I'll do it myself.

Though I didn't see the original post, the two copies that I received did not have that word in it bwildman. A close word, but not that word. You're asking to be banned, bwildman? Before I do, could you try to ban yourself first? Let's put rabbitoid's conjecture to a test, eh?
Oh, could you clean up your post with the one word you said you found objectionable and deleted other's posts?
Ed's post is what I heard from two other people in private messages to me complaining about your moderation and playing favorites. I'll go ahead and ban you in about 20 minutes, unless you're successful in doing it yourself. That will be 6:50 AM my time Pacific Daylight Saving Time (PST)

The game isn't going anywhere, and I'll soon have proof to add to the fire.

So, why did you tell them to stop talking about the lawsuit business? Depriving me of some enjoyment watching the carrying on about that which no one is too sure about, but all have an opinion of, including myself. Besides, we need to know how the case is going and if the patent is defendable or not. What better place than here at the Gothic Chess discussion board, especially when one of the posters is Ed Trice himself? Please do not censor things of this nature again. It's arguable that it is on topic, but even if it's not it doesn't sound like it was a flame war or cussing session.

As for the messages posted during your absence that you found objectionable, could you do it as I asked in the previous post the next time and just hide the posts and the poster? While the post is hidden and after the other moderators have had a chance to review it, we can come up with an action to take.

I might ban you yet, though it would be a favor to you in the long run. Maybe I'll ban myself instead and then we can see what will happen with rabbitoid's conjecture. :)

It's not as ludicrous as you might think. I find it interesting that you didn't defend Thad a few days ago when I threatened to ban him, and yet you're quick to vouch for bwildman. It's a simple enough of a thing to hide a person's postings. Why not do so and let the other moderators help with the decisions? If each of us willy-nilly decides to ban/unban various people nothing but anger and chaos will ensue. I've been told, but do not know if it's true or not that bwildman was a moderator before and was thrown out of the position. Anyone know, one way or the other? As for why Fencer choose him and Thad, you'll have to ask him. Fencer's choices aren't set in stone and he was just helping me out getting people to share the moderating duties. Maybe they asked him if they could be moderators, I don't know.
I do know I don't like censorship. I also know that we can't just let things spiral out of hand or trouble will happen and that'll be the end of it. Each person has their own limits and tastes as to what they find objectionable. Setting the standard to the person with the most sensitivity will obviously please that person in every case. What about the rest of us that like things a little more free and loose? Or maybe even posts about Gothic Chess itself? All this talk about these other issues is starting to bother me and I'm getting tired of it.

Let me state how I want offensive posts handled while I'm moderator. If none of us moderators find the post offensive, but you do, write us. If one of us moderators does find the post offensive, put it and the poster on hide and then message the other moderators about the post and person in question. It should be fairly clear cut about what it is when this happens and I'm sure we'll quickly come to a consensus about what action to take. Hiding will work as a unilateral procedure and it can be undone, whereas deleting is permanent and takes away from the other moderator's imput. If the other moderators are OK with this, then there it is. If not, please state your objections. As for everyone else, what do you think? Good enough, or do you have a better plan that'll keep in mind my feelings about censorship. I hope this is good and it seems like it'll work just fine without stepping on anybody's toes unduly.

Now, where's that Gothic Chess discussion board at?

Yes, but he could've put the offending messages on hide along with the poster and waited until the other moderators had a chance to decide for themselves. Now, as it is, all I have is heresay about postings that no longer exist. True I might keep a more watchful eye on ughaibu, but it is possible that I might've not found the messages offensive and could've unhid them. Then they wouldn't be lost. With them being deleted unilaterally, I am given no chance to make a decision or to have something to refer to in the future should a simular occurance happen. If I also found the messages offensive while they were still hidden, then they probably would be deleted. When someone is on hide, I can still read their posts. No one else can, except maybe the other moderators, so no one will be offended while the posts remain hidden.
This is one very good thing about having more than one moderator, it gives the board more coverage for moderation. I suppose I could've also switched the "Mode" for who can post to "All posts must be approved" when I was the only moderator and was going to log off. I hadn't thought of that then, but it would've been a workable solution and might've precluded a lot of the things that have gone down since that time.

Very well then. bwildman might be banned soon. In the meantime please try to keep the commonly accepted swear words out of your posts to this board. I have no problem with you attacking someone's position, but please don't attack the person. In fact, I'm glad to see diverse views. It keeps me thinking and stops one person from dominating the rest us and the discussion.

Yes, there is a difference between using words considered profane and actually swearing and cussing at someone. Some people don't see that though and will have a word list that has words to never be uttered. I believe that is how this site is towards the seven words that George Carlin lists. It is certainly possible to swear without using a cuss word. The person that such a post is directed toward will feel a lot stronger about the wording than a person that just happens upon it. The message I received from Ed Trice about your posting definitely had swear words in it. If it was a true cut and paste, then you should have known that the words you used in it weren't going to just fly on by on this or any other board on this site. I'm not happy about the other moderator's handling of it, but one of them made the call and your post was deleted. As I said, I would've put the message and you on hide if I found the message offensive and waited until I and the other moderator had a chance to read it. Perhaps you can rephrase the post without the "offensive" words and put it back on? As I never saw it you'll have to use your discretion if you decide to post it again. It might be best to just let the matter drop though. Maybe you could send me a private message with the posts in question and I could tell you how I feel about them?

Is that right, Thad? Hmm, then I stand in error here. Perhaps bwildman will explain his re-instating of those two without conferring with me then. I apologize for assuming it was you, though he did complain to me just recently about banning danoschek and you re-instating him! Whatever is going on here and why haven't you guys sent me messages before doing anything? He said you twice in the recent past have unhidden danoschek after he put him on hide. Is this true? If so, then you've lied. If not, then bwildman is misleading me. A public forum it shall be, since neither of you has felt the need to send me messages prior to any action that either of you may, or may not have taken. It's too bad that the banning/hiding of posters to the board doesn't have a history so that I could verify the tales I'm being told. Not that it'd matter all that much. This seems so petty at times, yet it has importance in ways I'm still trying to fathom. Maybe I should ask danoschek about who put him on hide, but we're not on speaking terms. Plus, I believe there's no way he'd know since there's three of us now and no one to point a finger at for sure.
The old saying, "When there's more than one person responsible, no one is at fault." seems to hold true still. Though I've lost authority having you two as moderators, it's saved me from having to constantly monitor this board and worry about things in my absence. Then again, having you two onboard has caused me nothing but worry and consternation!
So bwildman, why'd you re-instate them right after becoming moderator? And why have you put danoschek on hide? Thad, why unhide him? What's the deal? Who's been censoring people? Did ughaibu really post all those swear words and mean posts as Ed says he did? If so, why wasn't he banned along with his messages being deleted? Couldn't the messages and him have been put on hide until I had a chance to come online and read them? And again, why wasn't I sent a message about it?
Before I change the setting to "All posts must be approved" and ruin the atmosphere of this board, I'd like an honest accounting of your guy's actions. If you'd rather give up your positions as moderators, I will search for a replacement or two. I now realize that I can't cover this board 24 hours a day, nor can I even do it every day. So I rather have moderators that leave well enough alone, but will step in when the need arises. Kind of like how Fencer does it. Lots of pushing and shoving, but a hands off approach until forced into action. This pre-emptive stuff ain't cutting it in my book. Sounds like you are now taking this approach Thad, but I'm still not sure what's what. Instead of banning you, maybe it should be bwildman that is banned?

This computer seems to be holding up now. I've finally moved in all my games, and might be able to research the Bird's/Capablanca/Gothic Chess deal. I would've liked to have read the posts that had the links before they were deleted on the other sites. If anyone has the text or knows where the posts were moved to, please send me the information. Regardless of how I feel about the patenting of Gothic Chess, it will help it survive if it can get through the ordeal and critisms the skeptical people have towards the ownership of it and who just want to play a good game. After seeing Fencer add a whole bunch of new games, I am still hopeful that Ultima might be added some day. This Grand Chess sounds like a fun game. Any chance of adding it to the site? I suppose that's a question for the request board, eh?

Thanks all for your indulgence. Hope to hear from the other moderators soon. Publically to explain themselves, and then privately to figure out what to do. Thanks again.

Too many chiefs, and not enough braves?

What a bunch of knuckleheads! As I said earlier, off topic talk is OK. Why is it that some people have such a problem with that? Perhaps a little clarification is in order? Just because it's OK by me and whoever else the powers might be, doesn't mean you can go so far off tangent that we just don't know what planet you've beamed down from, but don't worry about it. Just don't cross the line, OK? Since I've been having computer problems, plus the timing of Fencer adding two moderators, a lot of grief and misapprehension has come to me. Taking advantage of it is not going to help. I'm sure Fencer meant well, but I've come close to banning both of the new moderators. Thad for acting unilaterally, and bwildman for inciting riots. Of the two, I'm inclined to let bwildman stay. He atleast is online everyday and does care about the going-ons of this particular board. Thad, though, is trying my patience. Unbanning people without my input, censoring people for no reason, and then vanishing without a trace. He's sent me one message and sounded quite high faluting in it at that. bwildman has apparently been deleting postings that I wasn't able to read before he did so. It is the drawback to this type of communication, but if people are posting and using curse words, then I suppose I'll have to side with him about the deletions. I would like him to use his power of deletion and editorialship to leave the posts more or less uncensored, and then warn the offenders, but it is lots easier to just delete the offending post and be done with it. I would also prefer that the postings themselves not move him to do something like this, but them's the breaks. I do have half a mind to force all postings to go through me before they can be posted, but that's not how I live life or this site.

Hi danoschek! You know, you've been more or less coherent and tolerable of late, and yet my co-moderators are having quite the battle about having you able to post here. I posted a few weeks ago when I was the only moderator that you'd never be back here. Low and behold, Thad said you're back. I didn't instantly override him, nor ban you both, but I'm still tripping on how it's gone down.
Yes, I've been an absentee moderator, but I think that's why Fencer added a few more in the first place. Someday soon I'll have a real computer and a little more time on my hands and we'll not have to deal with it so much. IN the meantime, do as you'd like, but it will eventually be moderated or censored or just let go as is happens. Those that work the system or abuse it will have their play and chance, but it will come to light and be fixed sooner or later.

Now, where'd I leave that Gothic Chess discussion board at?

Trouble already, eh? Perhaps the two new moderators would care to send me some messages about their recent decisions and actions? True enough I said a few hand, but overriding the banning of people should be something discussed amoungst ourselves.
As for Thad's little missive, I disagree with quite a few of those things in it and will ban him again if he tries any of that stuff. I'm not sure about bwildman being a moderator or not, but I think Thad is a poor choice. Way too disruptive, opinionated and dictorial. Or have I missed something in all this telling it how it's going to be without even asking? I'm easier with the off topic stuff and I will not let Thad or anyone else censor people for it. As for insults and things of that nature, I will advice against those kind of actions. Just gets people mad, and there's too many chiefs running things and we're be headlong into chaos before long.
Bye danoschek, catch you next time. After I get home I shall have more time to read this board and perhaps just drop the whole thing. I will certainly begin to research Bird's, Capablanca's, and Gothic Chess and patents and related things.

Welcome Thad and bwildman. I didn't add you to the list, so I'll figure you asked Fencer to be added to the list of moderators and he went for it.
I'm currently typing from the public library in Bishop, California as my truck broke down on the way home from Rock Creek where I was camping. I'll just let the new moderators have a free hand until or unless the need arises for me to do something about them. As for re-instating danoschek of EdTrice, they'll banned for awhile more if not forever. Though EdTrice might be welcomed back as he seems to have a few supporters here, though not one person has vouched for danoschek. The reasons they were banned previously are still valid now.

I went to the link BuilderQ. The game is almost exactly the same as Gothic Chess. The castling rule sounds cool too. But it could be changed to regular Chess rules and you'd have the same game with a slightly different initial set up, just like Capablanca's and Bird's versions. While at the Chess Variants site I checked out a couple of other games. Grand Chess seems pretty cool though it has some major differences to Gothic Chess. Especially how the Pawns can promote and when. Grand Chess had a link for a chess set. I like how they made the Cardinal and Marshall look. Same pieces as the Archbishop and Chancellor. The board is 10 X 10. I'd like to try both games and see how they play. Has anybody played them? How do they compare to Gothic Chess?

You did it again. You said "We". In the whole time that I've been at this board (Since July 9th), not once did GothicInventor/ Quequesno/ EdTrice mention a partner in the ownership or patenting of Gothic Chess. He always said "Mine" and "I", never "we" or "ours". Not only that, you haven't posted to this board since April. Suddenly you're here saying how optimistic you are. Perhaps you're reading pessimism into my posts? I'm skeptical by nature. Don't mistake skepticism for pessimism. The way you've gone about your post of late is definitely sending warning flags up for me. I don't want to get caught off guard like I just did a couple of weeks ago, and it appears is still ongoing. You haven't answered one of those questions I posed, well one you did. But now you're here telling me how to moderate this board and who to ban. You're right, I don't like the fact that you, er excuse me, Ed Trice has patented this game. But that's just tough for me. It's still a good game. I truly believe that it can't be owned as I understand these things, the actual game itself, and its history. You can start by filling in the details and answering my concerns about ownership of this particular game and how you're going to protect your, er Ed's patent. Who are you? Why didn't Ed give you any credit? Let me start with my first questions.
1) What is your vested interest? Are you partners with Ed Trice? How come he never mentioned you?

You detect sarcasm in my tone? You very first post is ridiculous. You don't see it? The first line of the post dated 20. August 2004, 20:36:40
Media Coverage? I asked you about it, but no reply. Why would Hasbro need your permission, er Ed Trice's permission, to make Gothic Chess sets? The pieces predate his patent.

Next paragraph-Live news crews! I asked you about that too. No reply. Saying it like this makes one think of Eyewitness News, camera crews, and lots of microphones. What do you mean?

Then this sentence- Some offers have come in regarding online playing sites, which I am a little reluctant to discuss right now.--<
Why'd you put that there? Is it supposed to wow us? You're just talking about a game here, and you have all these conspiratorial tones about you.

The rest of the post is one of the least subtle piles of propaganda I've come across. A VOTE! What kind of election doesn't allow more than one choice? ->Instead of spawning a debate, I would like to propose a vote.--< Stifling dissenting voices, sure that'll win you lots of votes and keep debate to a minimum. It worked in the Soviet Union for years.
The whole thing reads like a fluffed up reminder that you're going to take your ball and go home. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt as I wasn't used to your writing style and might have been interpretting it incorrectly, but as has been shown by your subsequent posts you sound quite a bit like a mouthpiece for someone that was banned from this discussion board more than one time. I'd be carefull if you want to continue using BrainKing if I were you. That's a big time violation of the user agreement.

In your next post dated 21. August 2004, 05:57:52, you reply to my questioning of your "vote". You again say how non-negative you are and your posts. Quoting-
->Also, if I keep getting messages sent to me that are NEGATIVE...to put it nicely...I will post them on this board for everyone to see and then maybe everyone can comment on them. I don't post alot because of the negativity on this DB, thats why in the Gothic Fellowship's DB's I post there--<
Just what are you insinuating here, Mr. Positive? I've never even heard of you, nor have I read any posts mentioning you in a bad way on this board. I looked through a lot of posts trying to find mention of you. The only person that did, was EdTrice. He talks about your skills at Gothic Chess and about making a playing card with you on it. That's it. I didn't find any disparaging remarks directed towards you. Especially during the flame war that went on just before your re-emergence to posting on this board. Oh, what's this? I missed it the first go around. It doesn't sound too positive to me.
>-ChessCarpenter (2210) Rename this DB 15. August 2004, 12:59:33
How about renaming this board to "The VENTING Board"! Come here and vent on anything!--
How nice and helpful you are.
You got me now, what're you up to?

Your post where you ask about my problem is. My problem is I think the patent is invalid and you guys are trying to profit from other people's work and ideas. It might be true that you put a lot of time and energy into your cause, but that doesn't mean you own the game and are trying to make it rich with some legal shenanigans that fool all of us lay people into going along with it. Take a game like Dark Chess and the playing of it on a computer between two people. Now that's a real innovation, but it's still a game that's over a hundred years old with a couple of rule changes. I don't see anyone trying to cash in on it like you guys are. Be happy your game is getting played. Sell books on how to play it, or software, but the game itself is way older than you and your patent. After visiting the link with the patent, I came across ways to have patents re-examined. Unfortunately the fee for an "ex parte" re-examination is $2520.00. So I won't be contesting the patent any time soon. They also mention that the commisioner of the patent office can just open up a patent query on his own, but then he'd have to have a reason to do so. I imagine a game would be pretty low on his to do list. So it would appear your patent will stand unchallenged until you guys try to enforce it against someone playing "your" game without your permission. Then you'll be the ones on the spot and will have to prove it's a good patent. Obviously it must've worked once, since you got the patent in the first place. Or's it easy to get a patent and hard to lose it?

How's that one played Caissus?

As for this licensing business, I'd just keep the game here and blow them off. If they have a problem with it, rename the game. Kind of like Othello is called Reversi here, right? I still don't get how a patent can be granted for something that's a hundred years old. Suppose I took Bird's chess and said a Pawn could not be captured if the move threw a check and the King or Pawn had not been moved in the game as yet. Making a rule change to try and prevent the quick mate that comes about from the Pawn being unguarded at the start of the game. We'd have a new game, but would it be something that could be patented? In Gothic Chess, there are no new pieces or rules. Just a rearrangement of the pieces that existed a hundred years ago. How can this be a new game and a furthering of the art? I could just take Gothic Chess and require the first piece moved be a Pawn. Would this be a new game? In fact, they purposely made all the rules of regular Chess apply in Gothic Chess. The pieces aren't even named differently from Capablanca Chess! I read Ed Trice's article and he shows that the piece placement in Gothic Chess makes for a better game, but I still don't see how that makes it an invention. There's hundreds of Chess variations. I doubt if many have ever been patented. And even if a few are, what good did it do the patent holder? Perhaps it's my lack of understanding of the patent process and the rights and obligations that come with being a patent holder that is causing my confusion. All the same, to me an invention has to be new and novel in some way. I just don't see that in Gothic Chess. And why Gothic Chess? I didn't ask anyone's permission to play it, nor have I bought a license. I wouldn't even know how to go about getting one, come to think of it. Do I have to pay royalties to play this game? Is the license free, or did Fencer pay them for it? What kind of cost would that be? Seems like Fencer is doing Ed a favor just having the game on his site, spreading it out to the public, and letting Ed advertise Gothic Chess sets and links to his website.
Perhaps I'll write the Patent Office and ask about patents and games and see what the answers are. Or a patent attorney. I have a few things I need to have patented too. Maybe an attorney would answer my questions as he's helping me with my patent application. What does it cost to get a patent? Why bother getting a patent? To protect your idea so that one has exclusive right to it, right? I'd say Gothic Chess is Bird's idea and it's part of the public domain now. Was this patent acquired in the hopes of making it rich? Sounds like someone is out a couple dollars.
I think I will make an 8 X 10 chessboard and play a game on it. I might even market them. Flip it over for an 8 X 8 board. Add some extra pieces for Chess variations. Market it as a Bird's Chess chess set. Wouldn't be much of a problem for someone that wanted to play Gothic Chess to rearrange my Bird's chess set pieces to play that game instead. Would I need a license from anyone to do these things? I really doubt it, plus what can they do if I refuse to buy one? Take my set away and tell me to go home? How's someone like Ed going to enforce his patent? That's assuming it is a patent that can't be contested and overturned, at that. I'm really confused about the whole thing.

Anyways, tell me about the Abergvariation.

What do you mean by a vested interest, ChessCarpenter?

I'm confused about this vote. Isn't it up to Fencer if the game stays or not? People play it, that attracts people to the site. 19th place. That's not bad for a Chess variant. Just Chess and Atomic Chess have more in the Chess category on this site. The more games offered, the more choices for someone to think about joining the site and playing. Has any game ever been taken off this site? Seems like more are added as time goes on. I do remember Pente and Keryo Pente being deleted at the behest of some, but they were brought back and renamed when others clammored for the old versions to be an option. Now there's six versions of Pente games.
Does Ed Trice know that you used the word "our" when talking about his game? He'll be mighty upset.
What media are you talking about? I read the paper a few times a week, did miss an article? Will the Computer Championships be on television, or's that internet news coverage?

Though I vote to keep the game, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to hear from people that will vote no. Not that you'll find too many in the Gothic Chess discussion board. Kind of preaching to the choir here, aren't you Robert? Perhaps you should pose the question in a different place and see what kind of response you'll get. I would expect over 90% of the people here to vote yes even if they were offered the no vote as an option.

ScarletRose, please feel free to pose, speculate, and ask questions. It'll make us think, plus someone out there might just have the answer that you're looking for.

In your post dated here, you ask a question about the moderator control of what can be posted. My page to this site looks different than when I wasn't the moderator. It has various options and controls on it. One of them is called "Mode". when I click it, I'm given three options:
1) Everyone can post
2) Pawns must be approved
3) All posts must be approved
I currently have it on "Everyone can post". The third option is the one that you refer to in your post. I suppose I could change the setting to it. Had that been the setting when Fencer reinstated EdTrice back to this board a few weeks back (MY how the time flies!), I doubt if any of the flaming posts would have even been sent to me for posting to the board. That would be a good thing. The bad that I see in it is the stifling of free thoughts and ideas. Humor is one of the first things to go when one selfcensors himself, let alone if I do it to someone. Unfortunately most of the humorous posts have been deleted and only the rude, derogatory, and vemonous ones remain. Though a few of them have been removed too. There's also the work involved with doing it that way. Though I imagine the actual number of posts would decrease dramatically and it wouldn't take much time and energy on my part to review and post the few that would come in. I like the setting as it is, but it has the drawback of letting people that don't have enough self control or who are immature to get out of hand and dominate the posts. As I said when I first bacame the moderator, I wanted to stay in the background and just post as others do. I believe this is part of how I chanced to be made the moderator also. EdTrice had a number of detractors during his previous regime and Fencer got tired of it. I just happened to have stumbled into this board after having learned how to play the game the week before.

That's a good question. A related one is what is the shortest game possible? In regular chess, believe it or not, Black can win in two moves! White can win in three. The one where White moves out his King's Pawn, then the Bishop and Queen, to then capture Black's King's Bishop is a four move mate.

I'll see if I can look at the Gothic Chess board and answer my own question. As for in a tournament with good players, it'd be hard to imagine a checkmate happening before the tenth move, but it might have happened. With resignations, I'm sure games have lasted just a few moves.

EdTrice said he was leaving the site soon, so I suppose it's of little consequence about reinstating him or not anyway. He is a man of his word, isn't he? Though if I recall right, he said he was going to leave the site in a few of his posts the he removed recently. And yet, he's still here. If he's finishing games and not starting new ones, then he's doing what I did last year. After I finsihed all the running games, I left this site and IYT. Nice break for seven months, but I got the game itch and here I am again. If he's starting new games since saying he was going to leave and continuing on this site, then I don't know what to make of his actions. He wants me to remove all of his posts.

Believe it or not Fencer and danoschek are the moderators for the Book discussion board. danoschek writes in a clear language in the few posts that I read on the Book board, so I can only conclude he was purposely writing here in a way to annoy the rest of us.

I want to make it clear that Fencer banned them both, not me. Since his action was taken I've received a few messages from both of them.
danoschek's messages and replies were strange and rude, and as long as I'm the moderator he won't be welcome back unless Fencer says otherwise.
QuoQuesno/EdTrice sent me a link to a site about Bird's, Capablanca's, and Gothic Chess written by him. I believe that's the same one the redsales mentions just below here. He also stated that he thought my remarks in the long post I wrote were dismissive of his efforts and didn't like the way I said it. He said this quite reasonably and without any malice that I could tell. He has since set me 8 or 9 messages telling me to delete all of his remaining posts. I sent him one message asking him why and he replied that he wanted to leave no trace of him on this board! I have not replied to this message, nor have I removed any of his remaining posts as of yet. I think the wholesale removing of one's posts is a blatant disregard of other people's rights. Sure you have a right to post, but after I invest considerable effort to form and write a reply and then you go and delete yours and make me look stupid, it doesn't seem right to me. If any of you have doubts about that, consider the posts at the end of July and the beginning of August. Since he removed about a hundred of his, there's not much sense to be made of the remaining ones. I kind of regret not saving the posts each day to my computer, but at the same time is there anything of that much importance to make the effort worth the trouble? Which also begs the question, especially in light of his stated desire to leave BrainKing, why should he care? I believe that once it's written and not changed, fixed, or deleted immediately, the post should remain.

I think this board can carry on without the both of them. It will probably lose a lot of its fire without those two trying to shout each other down, but perhaps we'll actually have most of the discussion about Gothic Chess or people looking for a game or tournament to play in. EdTrice's expertise in this game is going to be missed, but that doesn't mean that other people won't pick up the ball and run with it. If Gothic Chess catches on like Ed wants it too, they'll be plenty of people to move it forward. Those of us here that play it are doing it ourselves. Lots of uncharted territory in the game. Even regular Chess itself isn't completely known. It will be quite a few years before the book on Gothic Chess gets anywhere near the size of regular Chess's. And that's assuming people play the game, especially the experts that will write the books and popularize the game.

I'll put two tallies on the ban column then.

Benevolence and magnanimty, now there's two things I'm not normally accused of being. It's also been said of me that I don't suffer fools well.

And yet, here I am, moderator of this particular discussion board. I have to ask myself, how'd that happen?

Those of you that complain about other people talking off topic will be banned. Let the idiots rave. Who cares? Sure, the topic of this discussion board is Gothic Chess, but what kind of conversation is held that only allows one subject to be talked about? So there's members here that really should just shut up, but no, they continue to rant and try everyone's patience. Why get worked up about it? Eventually I'll get around to banning everyone and I'll have the place to myself. In the meantime, get over it.

Warnings for danoschek---
If you post or so much as mention this or simular type things again, you will be banned. "your diffuse puberty rituals of fixative proving" or "rabid wildboar who cannot control his periodic foam outbreaks". As has been pointed out to me before I ever came to this board, you are not allowed to copy and paste a user's previous post. This includes your own! It really is in the user agreement of this site. Besides, if you don't see how stupid it makes you look doing it in this particular instance, I don't want to read anything else that you might have to say. No matter how clearly written you might make it. As far as copying and pasting goes, bringing up a line or two to help illustrate a point is fine by me, but copying the whole thing to clutter up the board is annoying and wastes my time rereading it.

Warnings for QuoUsque/GothicInventor/WhateverElse.
Great, so you think you've invented this game and have somehow tricked the patent office into going along with it. It's modified Capablanca Chess and you didn't make it up except for changing the initial positioning of the pieces. Fine, you're a good player of it. Why keep pounding it into us? I'm the best Building player in the world, but do you hear me continuously carping about it, or putting people down that don't play as well as me? I've won over half the tournaments(28) that have been held since 1979. I created the game in 1972. I am the chairman of the Building Rules committee. I am the tournament director. It is not the only game that I have created, nor is it one that I play all the time. Moreover, I know it can be played better than I play it, it's just that a person that could play it better than me doesn't play the game. And I hope you realize this same thing about you and your ability at Gothic Chess. Hey, let's talk about Dark Chess. How's about you and I play a series of games? I don't have a machine to help me play, and you may use one if you'd like, but please announce it before we start to play. You've certainly done well in promoting this "Gothic Chess", but if how I came to be moderator of this board doesn't show you some serious problems with you and your approach, then you're a bigger fool than even danoschek thinks you are. I'm still mad about how you deleted all of your posts of a few days back. Now the posts in response to yours make no sense and you've cleared yourself too. Also, how you seem to change the past to fit how you feel about the present. I have half a mind to delete every post that you've made here and then put you in "hide" status so that you may read other people's posts, but not be able to respond to them. Serve you right for how you have acted.

Warning for ScarletRose. Let him go. He's faraway, leave him there. Take the bad times somewhere else or talk to each other on the telephone. I won't drone on about my past loves if you don't.

Help from everyone else about these three. Should I ban them all, one or two of them, or none of them? Should I stay on as moderator? Please send messages to me or post directly to this board or both. I shall tally any responses and I might act on them shortly. I'll see how I feel about it depending on the responses that I see here or receive.

Having written this, I also wish to say that I'm sorry for having written this. I've tried mightily to just let things flow and take their course, but no! We just keep having to push the envelope. I've written to Fencer concerning the actions that I might take and what authority I have to do so. He's said that I have free hand and supports what actions I might deem appropriate. If there are objections or support for this post, please let me know.

I still don't get the point. Why use them? I don't want to play a machine, I want to play a person. If I'm going to play against a machine, it should be clearly known to me before the game starts and I willingly consent to it. Sneaking one in is cheating or something else. It's definitely not sporting or fair.
Dark Chess is probably the least machine played game, plus it's hard to get outside help from other people because of the darkness.
Seeing how a person can take atleast a day for each move, I really don't see much need for a machine to make the moves. Just being lazy, eh? I ain't buying it for Reversi, Chessmaster1000. You don't need the machine to make your moves for you. When it's your turn, make a move. If it's a bad one, then too bad. If it's a good one, you earned it. Rationalizing away the reasons for your using the machine doesn't negate the fact that you're using a machine to play your games.

I imagine in ten or less years from now, computers will probably play these games so good that they'll stop being much use in having tournaments for them. Then the rest of us regular folks can just play them for fun like they're supposed to be.

Are you sure? White moves N D4-F5, then I say Black can move K E4-D5. White's next move must be a checkmate. What is the move? Least ways, I haven't figured it out yet. Could you let me know?

Ah, you did let me know. C C2-C3. Yep, that'll do it. Thanks

IS the second problem right? I think the King can get out of checkmate by moving to D5 after seeing the proposed solution.

Neat, harder than it looks. (Sam Lloyd's) I thought I'd solve it with a quick glance and a couple minutes of thought, but to no avail. Thanks Caissus. I'll check back on them eventually. Just how old is the Chancellor? 1880's? The history is a trip. Lots o' links from the site.

"S"? Der Springer? :)
"D", OK maybe Grand Dame
"L" I'll just have to memorize.
I might check it out sometime soon. I won't be able to follow the notes, but atleast I can work on the problems and then look for the solutions after words. Perhaps you can tell those guys about Gothic Chess and they might know of some problems already made.
Are they mates in two, or of variable length? Are they all mate problems, or are some of the other types mixed in?

Caissus, is there a link that's in English?

Nah, he means something that's usually over in a few moves that a person could solve as a problem. The good ones usually start with a move that is surprising or atleast not so obvious as say grabbing an unguarded piece. I remember checking them out years ago. The helpmates and selfmates I never got into much, but the regular mates in three or four were always ones to play with and even share with friends that knew how to play Chess. Gothic Chess should have many possibilities for composed problems. The newspaper here no longer has the mate problems and instead uses positions from actual games and will pose a question about what move to make at some critical juncture in the game. That's not the same thing as a Chess problem.

There's one I remember that involves a King and Rook against three Pawns and a King. I'll have to see if I can remember it and then I'll post it or ask how to post it as I don't know how to make these Chess board like you guys do. I suppose I could just list the pieces and squares that they're on and who's turn it is and any interested person could set up the problem on their own board.

Most problems look as if the were actually played. They generally have a middle game look to them, though the one I just mentioned is an endgame kind of problem.

OK, already. No problem. Your wish is my command. I hope this helps with your concerns and pain.

That answers the question. I think the version on the computer I usually use is 6.0. When I get a chance I'll give it another try.
How about you CardinalFlight? what version of Adobe are you running?

That it may be, but it doesn't answer my question.

When I get home, I will try it there. Seems like that computer is lots newer than my mom's is.

Didn't change my problem with viewing the pages. This computer has Adobe 3.0, is that new enough?

That happened to me too, CardinalFlight. I'm thinking it's the computer that I'm using, which isn't the one I normally use, that is causing the problem. Next time I'm hone I'll try the link from the other computer and see what happens.

Now we're talking. I dislike using this service to play the games though. Since there's no stopping anyone from using a Chess playing, er Gothic Chess playing machine, the game should be played face to face as a regular Chess match would be held. To hold the match on this site would only prove who has the better machine or program or advisor.
Just how well spread is Gothic Chess? Have there ever been any tournaments held as like a regular Chess tournament? I can't say that I ever seen a Gothic Chess in a store, but then there's lots of games that aren't sold in stores. Chess is in every store, even stores that don't sell games.

They're both knuckleheads!
Let 'em blow steam with this blather. I'm trying to understand each side, but I'm not having much luck. Are they fighting amongst themselves in a public forum. or are these posts real arguments to get me to agree with either one of them?
Hmm.. yes, obviously fighting. As for swaying me with eloquence and the power of logic and rhetoric, they're both doing real bad in that respect.
In fact that's what's missing, respect! You guys (GothicInventor and danoschek) are just wasting eveyone else's time with these type of posts. I really don't care, but it appears that some readers here do. It has humor to me to watch this kind of fighting. I also like the Three Stooges type of humor, so I'm not sure if getting me to laugh at one's posts is a good thing or not.
Come on Thad, they got you to post in response. This is a fairly quiet board without them posting to it. Since I was installed as moderator this board has had a dearth of posts until yesterday. I suppose we'd all like a higher quality of posts, but we get what we pay for.
Which is better? No posts at all, or these recent posts? I can delete them all, or edit them, or do nothing. What'll it be? Neither one of them are swearing, and some of the things in their posts actually are informative. I see no reason to do anything about them. In the future, when I scroll back to this page, it'll be interesting to see just what will have happened here. If the personal attacks take a nasty tone or if the posts get so far off the subject of this particular board that something has to be done or we'll be in danger of losing members, then I might be moved to act. Pushing the envelope will probably be what's going to happen next since this will be perceived as a weak action, but I will hope that it doesn't go that route. I'm not much for censorship. I will do what I can to not edit anything of other people's posts.

A saying that seems appropriate.

It is better to remain silent and to be thought a fool...
...than to speak and remove all doubt.

Starts September 25th. It's an open, all players are welcome. Hope to see you there.

I rarely accept draws, nor do I offer them much. What's the point? Hard to learn a game if you don't finish it and see how it goes with changing conditions. Perhaps if I played better I might recognize when to take a draw, but in the meantime I'll be playing until there's a winner or a lack of force forces it to be a draw. I feel simular about resigning, except if my opponent resigns there's not much I can do about it.

I like this game and am going to add it to my quarterly tournaments. Third Quarter 2004 tournaments will start the last week of September. I'll post here and in the tournament board when the tournament has been created.

OK, I joined your tournament. I have the feeling my rating is higher than 1700, but at the moment I'm unrated. If your tournament starts in 10 day, I'll almost certainly have a rating by then.

That's copy and paste. Yes, that will put the web address in the message that gets posted here, but I've already done that. I want to make a hyperlink so you or any one else that was enterested in the link could just mouse click it, and off they go. That's what harley did in his message dated 9. July 2004, 00:18:59
I must have misunderstood his direction and I'll wait until he's baack online and can make sense of my replies and then can help out. This is kind off topic, so I suppose a private message would be OK harley. No sense cluttering up the posting board with AOL help and problems. Thanks again both of you.
I did notice in my test try that the /a was missing even though I did type it in. So perhaps the web server got, but somehow there was no message

Where exactly do you type all that stuff?
And more importantly, why is it so difficult? I thought AOL had gotten rid all the computer literate type stuff and had everything set up for mouse clicks and typing easy things. If that's really how you do it. Tell me where they have the instructions for it. I'll probably not use the links and just type out the web address and let interested people copy and paste it to their browser since that's quick enough too.

<ahref="http://www.nascar.com"> NASCAR
Like this?

Perhaps I'm missing something harley. Right clicking the mouse while hovering over this page will not get me the create hyperlink option. I have AOL 7.0 if that makes a difference.

Thank you all for the nice welcome. I'm still tripping on how it came about. In the wrong place at the right time? :)
I'll address some of the posts since the one I made after becoming the moderator here.

Hi Scarlet, I'm hurt. :( Not into Chess you say. Maybe not regular Chess, though I actually do like the game a lot, I just don't play it here or anywhere else for that matter. Some variants I do play a lot of and am pretty good at the ones I play on this site. Though I've been taking my lumps in Extinction Chess lately, I'm still the reigning ratings champ in Dark Chess. Least ways I usually give a good game, win or lose. As for games in general, I'm big advocate for games and the playing of them. True enough I just learned Gothic Chess, but it's not that much different than regular Chess in the way that say Extinction Chess is. As for why Fencer did the switch like he did, and how it happened to be the very first time that I'd even visited this board, that's just one of them things I guess. I've been a member on this site since February of 2003, and I've had contact with Fencer in the past, so his choice of me wasn't completely out of the blue and I did volunteer myself. If you'd rather do it, I might be up to letting you have it. First I want to see how I like doing it and if I have the ability and time to do it. Give me a little while and if there's ploblem with my handling it, please post it here. We'll either dish it out, or I'll step aside. Shouldn't be that much of a problem.

LongJohn. Welper, I'm still trying to get over that Backgammon tournament switcheroo you pulled on me and others a few months back. So I'll certainly keep an ever watchful eye on you and any shenanigans or perceived highjinks that might come up. Since you came back, we've not had any contact though I've read some of your posts to other boards and have said nothing. A new leaf you're turning you said, so it's back to you. I have my own personal policy for you and I'll let others decide for themselves. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Hey! Want to play a game?

Thad. Seems like you responded to some of those Keryo Pente things last year that I refered to here. Did the previous regime here kind of remind you of some of that? I know it's why I stopped playing Pente games here. Gothic Chess is a good game, there's no reason for it to degenerate into something simular. I shall do my best to let other people here argue and have myself stay out of it. Of course, me being me, I'll probably open my mouth and kick in my 2¢ from time to time.

ughaibu. We haven't played in awhile here. Four years? That means we're going back to It's Your Turn. Thanks for vouching for me and I'll try to prove you right about my moderator skills. I might be a novice at Gothic Chess, but it's not like I've been in a cave about the game all this time. I just hadn't wanted to play it until recently. I'm learning. Besides, my point of view about how to play it might have a naiveness that more experienced players of it might overlook or dismiss because they've grown used to how the game goes.

Stevie. Yes, my name is Kevin. You may write to me as Walter or Kevin as you like. I've gotten used to it, and it's not a bad handle. It came about because "Kevin" was taken on IYT, so I made it up. In the interests of national security, I decided to keep the same handle when I joined this site. There's also a Kevin here, so it was taken here too and could cause mistaken identity problems.

redsales. That's how I feel about him leaving. I just learned to play the game and it seemed like he took on all challengers like you and I were discussing how some people don't. So I figure, cool, I know how the pieces move, I'll get a few more games under my belt, and then see if he'd play me a game or two. Oh well, that's how it goes sometimes. :(

bwildman. Thank you. A little luck usually helps a lot. As for joining your tournament, I'm not sure if I should. I might be unrated, but in my short Gothic Chess career I've defeated one player in the 2000's and am holding my own against redsales who's currently at 1903. If you still want me to join, drop me a line and I will. If these ratings are a true indication of playing strength, your tournament will be aptly named if I win it! :)

danoschek. Yes, I mistyped your handle earlier. I'll try not to do it again. As for your sometimes cryptic posts, I'll do what I can to decipher them when able. How is it that you were going to get the moderator job as a prize if GothicInventor lost a game? Seeing how he is undefeated here, I suppose you were relaxed about it. :)

ShadowyFigure. Thank you

bumble. Thank you.

Now, about these long posts from me! I will probably not respond in this manner again. I want to thank all who've welcomed me. Let's hope it's a good choice. If not, I will certainly make sure it wasn't a bad choice. I won't ban anyone for disagreeing with me. It's hard for me to imagine me banning anyone (Which might make me a bad choice to moderate), but I suppose I'll know a problem when it happens and take the action when it becomes necessary.

See you all at the games.

Hi all. I'll mostly stay in the sidelines though I will post from time to time. I suppose I'll eventually find out what went down on the other board, but in the meantime feel free to type about Gothic Chess and related subjects on this board. You may certainly send private messages to me too.
I'm new to playing Gothic Chess, and I'm up for learning a few things about it. I've finished seven games and have picked up a few things about the relative strengths of the pieces on the larger board and the two new pieces and the two extra Pawns. I also visited the previous regime's Gothic Chess web site and viewed a few pages to see what's happening over there. Dark Chess is still my best game on this site, though that doesn't make it my favorite game! As I get acquainted with my role as moderator and various subjects that come up, I'll try to do what I can to keep information flowing. Hopefully some of the stronger or more experienced players will kick in the answers regarding strategy and tactics.
Seeing how the inventor and the highest rated player on this site has left this site, we'll miss some of his commentary about those aspects of the game.
From the sounds of the way he responded to some of the posts he probably should have asked me or someone else to be moderator. Kind of reminds me of a Keryo Pente discussion board a couple of years back.
Thad's post of----
Conflict of interest 5. July 2004, 14:19:03
--is exactly what comes to my mind. That shouldn't happen with me being the moderator. I shall try not to edit anything, nor ban anyone. From what I've seen that will be nearly impossible to implement, but hey I'm easy and I'll give it a go. At the moment I don't know what powers and controls I have over the posts or people allowed to post here, but I will learn. As dictator of all that I see, I still see very little. Fencer just switched moderators as far as I can tell. If that means all of the settings and people who are banned are still the same, that's what it means then. I will start with a clean slate in a little while. If someone is having a problem posting let me know. I have no enemies on my list at this time for incoming mail. As far as I can tell, there's one master control for allowing: all posts, paid membership, or my approval before the posts hit the board. I also see that each individual post gives me an option to ban or to hide the author and edit or delete their posts. Hmm, well, I suppose that dictator or perhaps czar is what the position is. I shall endeavor to be a benevolent moderator then. If it turns into a task I find disagreeable, I can always abdictate. We'll have a draft danocheck party! :)

Currently the settings are:
Everyone can post
No one is banned
No one is hidden

My oh my, good bye GothicInventor.
Hey, I'll take the job of moderator. Sure it can't be that hard, and I'm sure the need for censorship won't arise all that much under my tenure.