| Author |
Message |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Note- The following is a CC of a recent message from Derek Nalls to L. Lynn Smith. It was informal and friendly. So, there are several personal remarks and off-topic references admixed which you may wish to disregard. I decided some of the issues mentioned may be of interest to this group- esp. the offer I made to L. Lynn Smith which I now extend to everyone. To be sure, no disrespect toward anyone was stated or implied throughout this message.
________________________________
Subject: my precarious plans to come out of retirement before I die of old age
By the way, I am only 41.
As I've previously mentioned, my invented yet un-implemented 3-D games [only 2!] will remain on ice until-unless the Zillions program is rewritten to accommodate true 3-D graphics. Being a programmer yourself, do you concur that this would be a tough project- a grizzly bear unenjoyable to wrestle with. To 2 dudes (Mallett & Lefler) who make what adds up to perhaps $1 US per hour for what can only be characterized as a "labor of love", I doubt such a project has great appeal (even though it is surely high on their wish list). So, who knows if this will really happen 5-10 years from now (or even 25
years from now)?
A few days ago, I finally perfected a board design which could support a large number of equally-impractical 2-D chess variants. Perhaps this basis for a class of games could somehow have some immediate, practical value to someone who allows himself/herself more versatility of approaches to the subject (including yourself). Admittedly, this is a rather large, potential group of inventors- it consists of everyone except myself.
I recently purchased a 21" LCD monitor, pivot-capable with a maximum resolution of 1600 x 1200. I even watch analog cable TV and view DVD movies thru it. I used it to recast all 11 of my math graphs in color, larger (1600 x 1200), in greater detail, accurate damned near down to the pixel- a drastic improvement. [Take a look.] Previously, I had been unable to fully view some of the large chess variants I had invented 2 years ago.
My largest 8-angle, square-geometry, contiguous-movement, 2-D chess variants require a minimum resolution somewhat greater than the maximum, allowable board size of 768 x 768. To the best of my knowledge, I finished inventing games of this class at number 46. Well, the first game I experimented with, based upon my new board design, requires a resolution of at least 3072 x 3072. So, my new, nearly state-of-the-art monitor is hopelessly inadequate! Worse, my new monitor has a greater, maximum resolution than the vast majority of monitors currently in use worldwide. Furthermore, proportionally, physically-larger monitors are needed to prevent the angular diameter of virtual objects from becoming so small that they cannot be clearly, visually recognized and distinguished. So, who could possibly see to play such a game? I guess the ultra-high resolution monitors and big screen TV's of today may eventually manage to breed and their offspring may become somewhat commonplace in 10-15 years. Hopefully!
The new board design I passionately admire makes possible 16-angle, square-geometry, contiguous-movement, 2-D chess variants. Of course, anything different than 8 angles of contiguous-movement is impossible to a standard square-geometry board.
A rarification of the live board squares makes this possible. Only 1 in 4 ranks contain any live board squares whatsoever. Also, (virtually) every board square is an island which must be linked to others to enable movement. Finally, the links between board squares are not visually confusing since they never pass closely between two squares they do not hit.
Movement at all 16 equal increments of 22.5-degrees is enabled. To be sure, all pieces familiar to 8-angle games move in an identical manner geometrically. Rooks move orthogonally in 4 directions, bishops move diagonally (color-bound) in 4 directions, queens move orthogonally and diagonally in 8 directions. Although the movement of the knightrider is absolutely unchanged geometrically, it no longer moves as a leaping piece but instead as a sliding piece capable of moving at angles 22.5-degree plus & minus the orthogonal axes (or the diagonal axes) which is in 8 new directions. Consequently, a knightrider-queen can move in all 16 directions. Also, a knightrider-rook can move in 12 directions and a knightrider-bishop can move in 12 directions.
This gives a "slider nut" like me 7 symmetrical sliders to base games upon- 3 basic sliders (rook, bishop, knightrider), 3 composite sliders (queen, knightrider-rook, knightrider-bishop), 1 universal slider (knightrider-queen).
To me, this is the best, dreamt-of, theoretical paydirt. Unfortunately, all of it is impossible and/or pointless to present-day reality. When I realized how large the section of a board I created would render a full board, I became so despondent I deleted it. Still, I can recreate a section of it if you want to see it now. In my realistic opinion, seeing it will not matter to anyone for years to come, though.
I do not think it would be productive to undertake any work today. I can only wait. Can you think of anything better to recommend? |
|