| Author |
Message |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:00 am: | |
In case you never heard about it:
Wikipedia (wikipedia.com) is an open and free online-encyclopedia. Its content has been created by volunteers around the world. Everyone can add his/her bit of expertise there. It is reviewed by other people and by administrators, so you wont be able to write any nonsense there.
I would like to take the opportunity and encourage all author to document your Zillions creations in Wikipedia, Create one article per game and add a link to the associated page at Zillions or wherever your game is displayed on the web.
There are also many articles on types of puzzles and types of games where your link (to your article) might make sense.
Finally, there are LISTS of puzzles and games.
One is called "list of puzzle computer and video games". A link to your article should go there if your game is a 1-player game.
You can also upload images (not bmp, though).
....
I have been busy lately writing many of the puzzle and tiling articles in Wikipedia.
If you see some topics or images missing, maybe
you can add them (create a logon for you first)
or mention it to me (via email; see http://karl.kiwi.gen.nz).
Cheers, Karl |
John Kewley (Jkew)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:49 am: | |
If your Zillions game is a chess variant, maybe it could be added to the chessvariants website.
JK |
Andreas Kaufmann (Andreas)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:06 am: | |
Actually Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original games unless your game already gained some popularity (e.g. played by many people on some game server) or published in some respectable game magazine. Don't forget, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Web space provider, only notable/important content belong there. If you create an article about your newly invented game, it is very likely, that sooner or later it will be deleted.
See for more information Wkipedia policy about "Wikipedia:No original research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
A better place to publish new chess variants is www.chessvarints.org. Unfortunately there is no place so far (beside this Zillions website) for newly invented board games or puzzles. It would be certainly great if somebody creates such website using the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia (it is under GPL), to have a place for board and puzzle game inventor to publish and discuss their work. |
Edward Holzman (Edholzman)
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:30 am: | |
Do yourself a favor and go to the Board Game Designrs Forum. They can be found at www.bgdf.com and there is a very active community that is very happy to help playtest or critique your designs. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:34 pm: | |
After having changed their policy on Zillions games TWICE in the last two years, it now seems that the Wikipedia administrators see any reference to any Zillions game as "vanity entry" and "advertising". (Their advices on this issue have been muddled and more than once contradictory in the past.)
This is a new stance and we have to accept it, I suppose. Hence it might not be appropriate any more to create any articles in Wiki on Zillions games.
Sorry for the bad news.
Happy programming!
Karl |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 11:27 am: | |
Wikipedia
Zillions Of Games
Votes For Deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zillions_of_Games
At least one not-as-smart-as-he-or-she-imagines editor at Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) is trying to get the Zillions Of Games entry deleted on the grounds that it is only an advertisement. Please register any opinions otherwise before it is too late? |
John Kewley (Jkew)
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 7:05 pm: | |
There are some strange and some over strong comments on that page.
Comments regarding Microsoft - note that MS is a company, presumably articles were about ZoG which is a product.
There is an entry for Scrabble - it even mentions Hasbro.
I don't agree that zillions of chess variants should appear on the Wikipaedia unless they are "establised". CV website does have some categories for these.
JK |
Edward Holzman (Edholzman)
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 10:01 am: | |
ACK! I am surrounded by Karl Scherer's sockpuppets! Obviously, one Wikipedia editor is on a very personal vendetta against ZoG in general (and Karl in particular). He seems to be downright paranoid about the whole ordeal.
The comparison between ZoG (a "programming" tool) and Microsoft (a corporation) is quite invalid. However, a comparison between ZoG and Visual BASIC would seem quite valid, and since VB has quite a nice Wikipedia entry, why single out ZoG? This is a kind of pseudo-intellectual snobbery that is, sadly, found in all walks of life where a few, sad people feel the need to puff up their own importance and ego by trivializing the accomplishments of others. Afer all, if ~~~~ has never heard of it outside of the Wikipedia, then it MUST be unimportant.
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? It's not like taking the ZoG entry out of the Wikipedia is going to erase Zillions from the Internet. Folks will still Google their way here and ZoG will get along nicely without the babbling, self-important egomaniacs that have declared themselves the Wiki-Nazis, dedicated to defending the precious integrity of THEIR Wikipedia. |
Doug Chatham (Doug)
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:06 am: | |
Good news:
The vote has ended favorably. Wikipedia will keep the Zillions page, at least for now. |
christine bagley-jones (Valentine)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:10 pm: | |
their a bunch of idiots, who cares if zog is there or not |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:55 am: | |
In this case, caring is probably just an article of faith (and I am an atheist). Some of us are confidently optimistic, some of us are confidently pessimistic ... about the future of Wikipedia. I exist without a comfort zone of certainty, in neutrality, since I cannot predict whether or not Wikipedia will eventually be worth much. [Some of Wikipedia's content is informative and relatively free from errors yet some of their editorial policies are bizarre.]
I suppose I could not stand the idea of ZOG being deleted from Wikipedia because I feel strongly that this great program deserves and needs fair exposure. |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
New member
Username: Omegaman
Post Number: 31
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:54 pm: | |
I thought it was an over-generalization but it is at least true that many bunches of idiots can be found in many places at Wikipedia. Whenever you are outnumbered by totally uneducated editors, you can expect merciless "tyranny of democracy" treatment similar to that depicted in the film "Idiocracy" (which I highly recommend) despite the facts.
I have recently gotten weary of constructively arguing with a certain bunch of idiots at the talk page, "Zillions Of Games" section attached to the "chess variants" entry on Wikipedia.
Get this? It is nearly unbelievable.
There is a group of people who have never purchased and used the ZOG program. Nonetheless, they inexplicably assess themselves as imminently qualified to judge the statement that (paraphrased) "the ZOG program has catalyzed growth and development, measured in numbers, in new chess variants since its introduction (in 1998)" as incorrect, without any evidence and even, without any compelling likelihood of being true.
Of course, there is a large number of chess variant inventors and players worldwide who have no experience with the ZOG program. I can accept that. But ... who in the Hell do they think they are to ignorantly lecture us about what the ZOG program is and is not capable of?
I am exasperated to the point of speechlessness (with them, anyway). Perhaps, someone far more eloquent and patient than I can do a better job of informing them? Good luck!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chess_variant |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 1:27 am: | |
It's also true that chess variants created in ZoG are better than historical variants as described in Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Most of the latter are hopeless. In my own non-humble opinion my own ZoG chess variants are for the most part better while I've tested their playability.
A tip: in chess variants one needn't check the zone for propmotion. One need only make this check: (not-on-board? n).
This is simpler and faster.
/Mats |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
New member
Username: Omegaman
Post Number: 32
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:27 am: | |
Opti Chess
articles for deletion
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Optimized_Chess
This is an interesting development.
Please check it out.
Get involved if you want to prevent zealots of Gothic Chess from destroying the mention of other significant chess variants in the world- esp. games that are related to it. |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:01 pm: | |
But "Optimized Chess" is a bad setup because the bishops are placed so that they will soon be exchanged. The one party will move his bishop to b3/b6 or g3/g6, or they will be exchanged in the centre. The knights are too remote so they cannot easily partake in the opening fight in the centre. This will make them even more obsolete - they are already significantly weaker than bishops on this board. Capablanca's classical setup, or Bird's, are much better. It's no use fighting over such a peripheral issue.
/Mats |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
New member
Username: Omegaman
Post Number: 33
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
It all depends upon how you define a good setup:
select CRC analysis tool
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc
According to the detailed survey within this work, Opti Chess and Embassy Chess are the two best CRC setups available.
I am not trying to start a discussion about the merits or demerits of Opti Chess. The point is that if Opti Chess is deleted from Wikipedia, Embassy Chess will probably be next. [Personally, I like Embassy Chess a little better than Opti Chess.] Then, Gothic Chess, the expensive commercial product, will be the only Capablanca Chess variant left with a meaningful presence upon Wikipedia. |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 12:13 am: | |
Derek, this endless jabber over the Capablanca variants is an intellectual cul-de-sac. If the CRC analysis tool says that Opti Chess is good, then it's a bad software. For instance, unguarded pawns in the setup does not in any way make the position inferior. It depends wholly on if there's any use in attacking them and whether such weaknesses narrows down the strategical possibilities in the opening. If it doesn't, then such weaknesses play no role, they could even be of the good. What matters are the strategical conditions, that all pieces can interact like equals, etc. That tool can hardly make such an analysis so it's of no use. The human brain is completely superior at such things, so why not use it instead. It's really no loss if Opti Chess is removed from Wikipedia. Capablanca's Chess, Bird's Chess, and not the least Gustav III's Chess, are of historical import, and they are deserving of a full article, but not this very peripheral variant. Wikipedia, after all, is not intended for personal intellectual property. I really wonder why people waste their life on such trifles.
/Mats |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
New member
Username: Omegaman
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:22 am: | |
You are the only one continuing to discuss CRC. You missed my main point which focused upon freedom of speech (via publication), economic and social justice. Obviously, you don't give a damned and are not going to help. So, why are you cluttering-up this message board with criticisms?
If you must discuss CRC ...
Unguarded pawns can lead to a threat of checkmate upon the first move, a stolen pawn or handicapped development- all to the advantage of white. It is best to avoid all CRC opening setups that have this vulnerability as a rule to insure greater fairness and stability. Besides, there are a vast number of other CRC opening setups that do not have this vulnerability. |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 37
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 2:40 am: | |
Derek, a threat of checkmate in the first move is generally to the advantage of the threatened party while he can defend against the attack while, simultaneously, developing a piece to a useful position.
Freedom of speech is one thing, cacophony is another. If people are going to destroy Wikipedia with a cacophony of private intellectual material then a djungle of information is created to the effect that one cannot see the wood for all the trees. Then Wikipedia goes the same way as Internet at large: there is so much information that it's hard to find the good information.
You have to decide: you cannot be against criticism and at the same time be an advocate of democracy. I don't mean to be adverse, I'm just stating my views, namely that one shouldn't waste one's life on silly things like Opti Chess. Don't get angry.
/Mats |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
New member
Username: Omegaman
Post Number: 35
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 3:13 am: | |
Now we are finally communicating (somewhat). By the way, I totally agree with you that CRC is an intellectual deadend.
Chess Sucks!
18 reasons
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/chess.pdf
Note that every violation of sound game-design principles that I cite against FRC also applies to CRC.
So, why you may ask did I invent "Opti Chess" under the pen name "OmegaMan"? To make one of the best games in this dull, unimaginative CRC class available for free.
Currently, there are only three Capablanca Chess variants with pages upon Wikipedia: Gothic Chess, Embassy Chess and Opti Chess.
The destruction of Opti Chess is their first objective. The destruction of Embassy Chess will be their second objective. Do you understand the concept of a commercial monopoly? |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 38
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 6:05 am: | |
If you instead study Capablanca's Chess and write a Wiki-article, then nobody can destroy it.
/Mats |
|