Second in the series of Chess Variants I’ve designed, here’s my probably most successful one:

Duel Chess

This variant is played on two boards, the Main board, which is a 5X7 board without the middle square, and the Duel board, which is a 3X3 board.

The Boards and Setup

There is no square c4.

            +---+---+---+---+---+
         7  |:d:| n |:k:| b |:r:|
            +---+---+---+---+---+
         6  | p |:p:|   |:p:| p |
            +---+---+---+---+---+       +---+---+---+
         5  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|     3 |   |:::|   |
            +---+---+---+---+---+       +---+---+---+
         4  |   |:::|###|:::|   |     2 |:::|   |:::|
            +---+---+---+---+---+       +---+---+---+
         3  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|     1 |   |:::|   |
            +---+---+---+---+---+       +---+---+---+
         2  | P |:P:|   |:P:| P |         X   Y   Z
            +---+---+---+---+---+
         1  |:D:| N |:K:| B |:R:|
            +---+---+---+---+---+      

              A   B   C   D   E

Rules

The game on the Main board is played like FIDE Chess, except for the changes described below.

• When a piece is captured on the Main board, that piece is removed from the Main board and is positioned on any empty square on the Duel board by the player who made the capture. (i.e. If the captured piece is White, the player who plays with the Black pieces chooses where to position the piece on the Duel board).
  
• A piece positioned on the Duel board cannot move until there is at least one piece of the opponent’s on the Duel board.
  
• Once both players have pieces on the Duel board, a player can choose to move a piece on the Duel board instead of making a move on the Main board. Pieces move and capture on the Duel board in the same manner as on the Main board.
  
• If a piece on the Duel board is captured, that piece is permanently removed from the game (a dead piece), and the apturing piece is immediately returned to the Main board by the player who made the capture (a returned piece). This piece can be placed on any empty square on the Main board, with one restriction, a player cannot drop a piece on a square if the returned piece places the opponent’s King in check.
  
• If the Duel board is full (meaning there are nine pieces on it), and a piece is captured on the Main board, the captured piece will be placed on the Duel board instead of an opponent’s piece which will be declared dead and will be removed from the game. The replacing piece stays on the Duel board and can be moved immediately.
  
• A captured Bishop can be placed on any square on the Duel board, regardless of colour. This also applies to a returned Bishop.
  
• Captured Pawns move in the same direction on the Duel board as in the Main board (Towards the opponent’s rank). Returned Pawns can move only one square, even if positioned on the second rank.
  
• There is no castling move.
  
• Pawns are allowed an initial double move, but cannot be promoted. Pawns that reach the last rank on the Main board or the Duel board cannot be moved.
  
• En passant capture is allowed on the Main board.
  
• Pieces cannot move through the middle square or leap over it, except for the Knight.
  
• The pieces are a King (K), a Knight (N), a Bishop (B), a Rook (R), a Dabbabah (D) and four Pawns (P). The pieces move the same as in FIDE chess, apart from the Dabbabah.
  
• A Dabbabah jumps two squares orthogonally regardless of whether or not there are any pieces on intervening squares and captures by displacement.
  
• A stalemate results in a draw, a lone King on the Main board losses, regardless of whether the player has any pieces on the Duel board.

Board Notes

The concept of this variant came when I imagined the way the boards are positioned, with the Duel board located above the Main board (positioned on a supporting column which is based on the Main board’s middle square), while my art skills are heavily limited, here’s an ASCII diagram of what the Duel Chess board should look like:

            +---+---+---+
           /   /:::/   /
          +---+---+---+
         /:::/   /:::/-+---+---+---+
        +---+---+---+  /:k:/ b /:r:/
       /   /:::/   /-+---+---+---+
      +---+---+---+p:/   /:p:/ p /
           +- | | |-+--+---+---+
          /:::| | |:::/   /:::/
        +---+-| | |-+---+---+
       /   /::| |  /:::/   /
      +---+---+---+---+---+
     /:::/   /:::/   /:::/
    +---+---+---+---+---+
   / P /:P:/   /:P:/ P /
  +---+---+---+---+---+
 /:D:/ N /:K:/ B /:R:/
+---+---+---+---+---+

Another way of playing Duel Chess is by using an orthodox 8X8 board (placing a border between the Main and Duel boards), with an upside-down Rook as the Dabbabah.

Duel Chess was designed for the 43-squares contest. However, it could be also played on 7X7 board with 6 Pawns, 2 Rooks, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights and a King; or on a 9X9 board with 9 Pawns, 2 Rooks, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights, 2 Queens (or a Marshal or a Cardinal instead of one, or both Queens) and a King. The Duel Board is always 3X3. As a side rule for the larger versions, a player that manages to fill the Duel board with 9 pieces of the opponent’s colour, wins.

I don’t care whether it’s a book filled but nothing than low-resolution printouts of his butt. It’s Alan-fucking-Moore, dammit, just the greatest writer in the history of Comics!

One of the never-die subjects that seems to grace every other Free Software/Open Source/GNU/Linux/Geek/Technological publication since whenever is the “Is GNU/Linux ready for the Desktop”?
It might be “It is ready”, “is it ready to take on Microsoft/others?” or “It isn’t/will not be ready” or “Why isn’t it ready”, or “This year it will be ready” or one of the dozen or so variations on the subject.

The question I’m trying to understand is, why are everyone so concerned about it?
And by “everyone”, I’m not referring to Red Hat, Novell or Canonical, but to the everyday user of GNU/Linux, or even to the everyday non-user. Will GNU/Linux’s “readiness” for the desktop make more people switch? Do GNU/Linux users even want more people to switch? (again, users, not commercial distributers).
The immediate answer is the herd effect, nobody wants to be the only one to do something; we are social beings, after all, and like to know we are part of a communitee. The other side of it, or the practical view, is that more users create what is called the “network effect”, making it the “industry standard”, which is a de-facto standard based on the simple reasoning that “Everyone uses it”. For example, try sending your CV as an .odf file. You’ll probably will get a “please use standard formats” as reply, and by which people mean Microsoft Word .doc format. More users of GNU/Linux on the desktop would mean that open formats will become “industry standards” based solely on the large amount of people using them. Same goes for .ogg instead of .mp3, open video formats instead of the proprietary ones in use today, and so on.
Problem with this argument is that it doesn’t work like this. Being “ready for the desktop”, it seems, mean that people can switch to GNU/Linux without any “loss” on their side. This means that GNU/Linux distributers are allowing restricted/Non-Free formats, drivers and codecs to be installed on the distribution, or even package them with the distro. Open-Office, the GNU/Linux de-facto standard Office Suite jump through every hoop possible to support Microsoft’s proprietary formats such as .doc and .xls.
In fact, it appears that being “ready for the desktop” actually means “being able to play proprietary audio and video formats, and support proprietary document formats such as .pdf and .doc” this in itself is a paradox, because it means creating a network effect on product A, which only exists to re-strengthen product B. In this sense, ESR’s argument that for Linux to survive, it must support proprietary, closed-source and restricted format is actually dangerous, as it means that the stronger GNU/Linux becomes on the desktop, it will only cause Microsoft and other proprietary formats to continue its domination.

The second argument for “being ready for the desktop” is that it will make GNU/Linux more User-Friendly and easier to work with. Question that arises is “who for?” I don’t really see people marching through the streets in anticipation of GNU/Linux being “friendlier” so they could finally make the switch. In fact, most people I know are currently drooling for Vista, not for SUSE. It won’t make much difference for GNU/Linux users, since they already are using the “non-friendly flavour” of GNU/Linux and are, apparently, quite happy with it. Some have even argued (very reasonably, in my opinion), that making GNU/Linux “friendlier” means that basic elements of the system will have to be bended, or broken, such as the multi-user system and the security model, which would, in turn, make GNU/Linux as vulnerable as Windows.

The third argument is that for GNU/Linux to “survive” as an OS, it must become desktop friendly. Sadly, this is as far from the truth as can be. GNU exists for almost 25 years. Linux has just celebrated its 15th year. It may not be “successful”, or take over Microsoft (or Apple)’s place, which, to corporate America is what “survival” means (as in “grow or die”), but the fact being, GNU/Linux isn’t about market share and expansion charts, its about Free Software (GNU) and getting the best tools possible out in the open (Linux). Those won’t vanish even if all commercial distros vanish. In fact, at some levels, losing the commercial support, GNU/Linux might actually florish. Not being forced into the desktop playing field/battleground will “release” GNU/Linux from the need to cater for flashier desktops (i.e. XGL/Compiz and their dependancy on closed-source, proprietary and restricted 3d video cards drivers), or to more media formats, and returning to the Free Software alternative routes, which, in eventuality, might fully realise the true revolutionary potential of the OS.

Fourth, and final, is the “being ready for the Desktop meaning becoming a mature, better OS”. To this we say “Linux != Windows“. Or, more to the point, since “mature” meaning “stop wearing sandals and shorts and start hiring double and triple speaking marketing guys with hairgel and 3 piece suits”, I say, “if the infantile, inherently broken, swiss-cheesed unusable piece of jukny-gunk called windows is what one consideres as a ‘mature operating system’, then I don’t want to grow up.

I’ve just noticed the following marketism in a certain unnamed customer, I searched it and found that it common enough for me to dwell on: “Promise Less… Deliver More!”

The impression here is that company X who deliver product/service Y promises a “Y-” (Less than Y) but actually deliver a “Y+” (More than Y, where Y usually refers to quality, but can mean quantity, price, etc). The actual meaning is that, when you have a product/service Y, once you promise Y-, just deliver Y and you’re all set, as Y > Y-. So if I can, say, deliever in a week, promising a 10 days delivery will means that by simply keeping to my standard quality, I’ll “deliver more”. It’s not what one would call a blatant lie, as they do, in some twisted, perverted sense of the word “deliver more”, but not the “more” that everyone’s been thinking of. Actually, since they promise “less”, they are disguising the true value of their product. It may be larger than what they’re promising, but that’s smoke and mirror. No one can deliver “more”, regardless of what they promise. If I can give you “Y+”, then that’s my product. Y+ is my Y and that’s because, (which is the part most people tend to forget), to get “more” one needs to invest “more”. More developing hours, better transporting equipment, more operators, whatever. You want “more”? Get prepared to pay more. If you pay the same, you get the same, but probably you were conned by their sales guys to believe it is “more” by promising “less” to you.