From the Depths of Wikipedia

Wiki article on Barry Blair wrote:In 1985, when the insulation company Blair worked for lost its contract with the government, he persuaded the owner to revamp the corporation as Aircel Comics under Blair's editorial direction.

Barry Blair was a fucking diplomancer apparently...

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:17 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scifaiku

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:48 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guide_star

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:57 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Teed

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:48 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canuck_letter

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:57 pm

Ancient History wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canuck_letter

I honestly didn't think that it was possible for my opinion of Richard Nixon to sink any lower, and yet somehow it has.

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:58 pm

Laertes wrote:
Ancient History wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canuck_letter
I honestly didn't think that it was possible for my opinion of Richard Nixon to sink any lower, and yet somehow it has.

Nixon! Always exceeding expectations!

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:40 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_fiction

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:32 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_%28coin%29

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:16 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:02 pm

Now I'm thinking of a version of chess where you assemble an army list like it was a war game, and different pieces have different point costs and such. The default pieces even have costs built right into them.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:12 pm

You would totally swap out your rooks for more bishops though, wouldn't you?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:22 pm

Would you? That would be useful against a standard setup, yes. But once the opponent is swapping out pieces of his own, would bishops remain useful? Maybe the answer is just 'yes' and it would actually be way boring, but it'd be interesting. Especially once you start adding in all the crazy fairy pieces.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:27 pm

And you could gain more points to play with by adding more crown pieces.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:37 pm

Ancient History wrote:And you could gain more points to play with by adding more crown pieces.

If they were 'either' crown pieces. You might also get expensive 'and' crown pieces that had to be taken in addition to the default king.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:43 pm

Chess is the most balanced and playtested game in the world; even Go doesn't come quite to the same level. I feel sort of like everything we're discussing needs at least a few centuries of playtesting in order to get it quite right.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:53 pm

Don't most games require a similar amount of absurdly exhaustive playtesting to work? The fact that we're starting from such an expertly balanced base only means we have comparatively less playtesting to do in order to get it to the level of balance considered acceptable for wargames conceived after the middle ages.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:49 pm

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix ... and_jargon

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:42 am

Laertes wrote:You would totally swap out your rooks for more bishops though, wouldn't you?

Early to midgame I'd be willing to trade my rook for an opponent's bishop, though I preferred to avoid trades if possible and make the board as complicated as possible since I placed higher value on my ability to figure out positions against book players once I got them out of their memorized openings.

I was taught under the chess scoring system of:
(pn:bi:kn:ro:qu)
1:2:2:2:6

The notion being that you wanted to try to win the game as early as possible and rooks only shine later one.

Pity I can't find a wikipedia article on matrix chess system. Closest I could find was a mention of an opening advocated by the guy who came up with it. (note, you can totally play matrix chess without ever following that opening line)