Differences of opinion - who is right?

I'm very new to all of this variant stuff. What I've seen so far is that some people will just play any ole variant, some people like a handful of variants with no real preference, and some are like religious fanatics and will ony play their 'holy variant' of choice. I've been on BrainKing.com for about 3 months now and I'm just figuring out how to navigate that site a little better and I stumbled across their bulletin boards just recently.

I do have some comments and questions that I would like to post here.

A) It seems like people either love Gothic Chess, or they hate it. I've not played a single game of it myself, but from what I've seen, it looks like the best variant out there.

B) I saw something somewhere on GothicChess.com about the game being 'balanced' but some person on BrainKing posted this link;

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=34&ngi=478187

The last two paragraphs of that post are what I am looking at for comments from the Gothic players

I wish I knew where that thing I read about Gothic Chess being 'balanced' is, but this person on BrainKing seems to think that Embassy, Bird, or Capablanca are all as good as Gothic.

Timewise, I really can't sift out which is best and I really only want to get involved with one variant. So can you guys let me know your opinions on all of this?

C) Why was there so much arguing over the last Computer World Championship? And are there Computer World Championships for Embassy, Bird, or Capablanca?

Sorry for all of the questions. I get the sense that talking about it on BrainKing is taboo so I look forward to your answers here.

Bird's game has a mate in 2 such as 1. Ch3 Nc6?? 2. Cxh7# so there is forced play from his startup. 1. Ch3 h6 is forced, or 1. Ch3 Nh6, so what is the point of even considering a game like that? Capablanca has a weak pawn on i7 for black and i2 for white but since white goes first black has to defend all game long. That game is not 'balanced' because on 1 side of the board there is ArchB, Bish, Queen all in a row. Each of the 3 pieces moves diagonal so you have 3 'diagonal dudes' on the Q-side and only 1 'diagonal dude' on the K-side, the other Bish. Never heard of embassy so I can't say anything about it.

The people that love Gothic Chess far outnumber the other small subset of clowns who try to keep saying "You can't patent Gothic Chess." These same nay-sayers have no life, and try to keep others from succeeding by doing nothing other than spreading ill will. And these folks are the very bottom of the barrel, just take a look at their lives close up and you will see.

This quote was from someone on BrainKing that really loves two things: Himself, and listening to himself talk. None other than "Walter Montego", the very weak player who will sit down and tell you that God consults with him on every creative decision He every made, who can't punch his way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to chess.

Download my paper, published by the International Computer Games Association Journal in 2004, from this link: http://www.GothicChess.com/80.pdf

This paper shows the weaknesses and imbalances in those other games, and why Gothic Chess is "perfectly balanced".

And, do yourself a favor: ignore Walter on BrainKing, he is just a windbag.

One programmer, named Reinhard Scharnagl from Germany, stopped playing after his SMIRF program lost to another program that was in second-to-last place. Reinhard becaome a "poor sport", resigning every game whenever something did not go his way. His opponent would disconnect, so he would resign "in protest". He would disconnect, so he would resign because it was "our fault" that his internet service is bad. Basically, everything was everyone else's fault but his. I "undid" one of his resignations, and gave him a draw, and his opponent was mad, and rightly so. I did this to try and keep him involved in the championship, and instead of being thankful, he continued his immature ways. There is a whole section on this that you can read for yourself.

And no, there are no computer championships for those other variants because they just don't have the following that Gothic Chess does.

I downloaded your paper. The math equations were like Greek to me. From the other examples shown, I now understand better what is meant by 'balance'. You are saying that having two diagonal type pieces on each half of the board equally distant from the edge of the board means they are 'mirrors' of each other, right? And Capablanca has 3 diagonal pieces on 1 side and just 1 on the other, so it is 'unbalanced'? By the way, did you notice one of the diagrams in your paper is drawn wrong? There is a Queen on d2 in one diagram, then it is not on the next one, then you shown Qd2xh6 in a later diagram.

Yes, I used to have a diagram of the symmetry, I will repost another one for you to look at. And with three diagonal pieces on one side, and only one on the other, the board is unbalanced, you are correct, that is what I meant.

I took a look at the paper and I still do not see it. I must have my tunnel vision blinders on, can you tell me where it is?

Here is one picture of the "lack of symmetry" and "weak i-pawn" in Capablanca Chess. I hope you speak French though

http://www.france-echecs.com/index.php?mod...051223003156261