Larry (interrupt),


you should read the mails of Ken Dayson more carefully. He did none of the
thing you accuse him. He did a very fine analysis on the suspect of 3D board
situations in STAR TREK, or at least named good sources for that. Instead of
attacking him, we should thank him for that.

He never said that any rule should follow what is seen on STAR TREK. He just
suggested that that it would be better to concentrate on some STAR TREK
version, instead of building more and more. His reason is (was) that only
two or three rule vesions would improve the pubularity of that game more
than bulding incountable numbers of versions. You did ahve any comment for
that good arguement.

He named the Bartmess and "my" rules as the most common one. I am not shure
if that is the fact, and I donb't care. Anyway the Bartmess version 5.0 play
by "upside down" attack board - so what is the "fight" for?
Can't we just accept that there are two mayor rule variants. And shouldn't
we - friends of STAR TREK Chess - work together, instead of fighting each
other?
Btw. did anyone notice that I list on my page in the meantime quite a
variaty of rule variants? Check it out:
http://home.arcor.de/jens.meder/3dschach/variants.htm

All best,
Jens


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: 3-d-chess@yahoogroups.com [mailto:3-d-chess@yahoogroups.com]Im
> Auftrag von interrupt27
> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Oktober 2008 08:38
> An: 3-d-chess@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [3-d-chess] Re: Hanging Attack Boards in ST3D Chess
>
>
> Evolution is a messy business. And those who fail to adapt are not
> worthy of survival.
>
> This site has seen a serious decrease in activity lately, and I had
> hoped to encourage a little dialogue with my recent posting. But it
> appears that some have no interest in simply discussing the
> potential of 3D Chess.
>
> I find the logic to the opposition to hanging attack boards
> fallacious. This being simply that no such condition appeared on the
> TV show. If this is the condition for developing rules for the ST3D
> playing field, it must be conceded that only that which appears on
> the TV show is permitted. Each and every developer would then be
> required to prove that each and every part of their ruleset was
> demonstrated on the program.
>
> I personally do not want to go in that direction. I assume that
> others do not also.
>
> I have presented several rulesets for the ST3D playing field here,
> including Zillions implementations for most to prove their
> playability(The Curved Space variant of ST3D Chess is proving too
> complex to code for Zillions). I have even given ideas on how a
> player might apply these rules to those real-world sets which do not
> allow for the attack boards to hang below the 4x4 levels.
>
> I have not demanded that any developer comply with any of these of
> these rulesets, or even the use of hanging attack boards. I have
> never stated that my interpretations of ST3D Chess should be the
> only ones. Yet there appears to be some who do not show the same
> consideration.
>
> If a person was truly intelligent, rather then seeing them as a 'mis-
> interpretation', they would see hanging attack boards as a logical
> expansion of the ST3D playing field.