Jens,

You might re-read my posting. I did not accuse Ken of anything. In
fact, I did not mention any names.


--- In 3-d-chess@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Meder" <jens.meder@...>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>