Chess 60 – Graphical Display

This is a follow up from my previous post, please read that first. Thank you.

Since a command line program isn’t particularly interesting I decided to turn that small program that generates a board into a program that also displays that board. Without much further ado, here’s a screenshot.


Yes of course it is very ugly, that’s not the point, it can easily be beautified. The eventual goal with this is to create a website that generates boards for players, similar to That way I simply need a phone and a chess board to set up my board.

Posted in Chess 60, Game Design | Leave a comment

Chess 60

Recently I’ve gotten heavily into chess, and while I think it’s a great game, I feel that it has one flaw: if you want to be good, you have to do a lot of rote memorization of openings. The fun of chess comes from setting up tactics and positions, and when I was first starting out, I had a great deal of enjoyment right from move 1, since I was trying to calculate out all the different moves and not leave pieces hanging. Basically I was playing chess right from move 1.

Unfortunately, once you’ve played a few hundred games the game effectively starts later. This is because in any position in chess, there are often only a few valid moves. If that position is at move 20 of the game, it’s up to you to find them. If that position happens at move 5 of the game, tons of players have already gotten there, and you’re expected to know a very strong move in response to whatever your opponent has done. It makes the game quite boring, since I’m just making the moves that other people have told me to make. Even more, both my opponent and I are making very strong moves, which means that it is quite difficult to win or lose games quickly.

This is quite unfortunate, and, as luck would have it, lots of people agree with me. This has lead people to create two variants of chess, shuffle chess, and chess 960 (otherwise known as Fischer Chess). Shuffle chess is where the pieces on the back rand are entirely randomized. This has some problems, namely being that you can’t castle in shuffle chess. Furthermore, not being guaranteed one light and dark squared bishop can change the game far too much, and make it feel not like chess. Bobby Fischer, the former world champion, invented a version of random chess where the pieces on the back row are randomized, however, the players are guaranteed one light square bishop and one dark square bishop. Additionally, each player can castle long or short, as long as there are no pieces in the way.

Frankly I don’t love chess 960, because I feel it still changes the game too much. I feel it’s confusing for newcomers to castle when the king and rooks are totally out of their normal positions. That’s why I decided to make a version where the king and rooks stay in their classical positions. Each player gets one light square and dark square bishop, but aside from that the back row is randomized.

Doing the calculations, it turns out that there are 60 possible variations that can arise from those rules. For those wondering how I got there, there are 5 “available” slots for the moveable pieces to go (2 bishops, 2 knights, and the queen). 5! = 5x4x3x2x1=120. However, half of those positions will be invalid, since they will have two dark square, or two light square bishops. That leaves us with 60 positions, which is still easily enough variation that it destroys any opening preparation, and leaves the players to start playing again from move 1.

This also sidesteps the problem that chess 960 has, where some positions are simply unbalanced, and heavily favour white. In other words, it’s not really chess 960 because you have to throw away a lot of junk starting positions. Classical chess has a very well balanced board, which gives winning chances to both sides. It also gives plenty of tactics to both sides. Chess 60 (my version) gives a true 60 positions, since the limitations (king in the middle, rooks at the end) provide enough structure that (I believe) all 60 positions are valid for high level competitive play. Of course, I can’t really claim that without having a GM take a look at all the positions, and not just that but actually play them, but I believe my point remains.

Since I had better put this programming education to use, I wrote a small (129 line) program in c++ that generates a board, and then prints out that board in text. It took less than 2 hours from the first line of code to the finished product. And at the end, for the ultimate irony: the very first board it printed out, was classical chess.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


A few posts back I was writing about things that I’ll change for the next game that I make. One of those was the increased use of structs, especially if there is a lot of repeated code. Today and yesterday I spent my time creating the new project of Dangerous Games. In doing so, I decided that I was going to create a struct called CharacterBase, which stored a bunch of variables that every character (PC and NPC) must have. CharacterBase looks like:

struct CharacterBase{
float xVel, yVel;
tdcRct clBx;
SDL_Rect rBx;
float angle;
float hlth;
bool isAlv, isSpwn;

Since WordPress always makes things very awkward to indent, I fully expect this to look weird. Anyway, I realized that all characters share velocity, collision box, rendering box, angle facing, health, and flags for being alive and being spawned. Not every character needs all of this, but even the ones that don’t need 90% of this.

Putting this all in one struct has a few benefits. The first is that I can make a change to the CharacterBase struct, and I don’t have to make that exact same change to all the NPC’s. Secondly, it saves a bunch of vertical space to give each NPC an array of these instead of each item individually. Thirdly, if I wanted to, I could create one constructor-like function, and just pass in this struct for each NPC and all of this information would be initialized to default values. Fourthly, it makes the code easier to read, since we can easily understand something that every character has, without having it burden the individual structs. Fifthly, somewhat on the same point, we can easily look at the individual character structs to see what is unique about this character.

Continue reading

Posted in Dangerous Games, Programming | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Games are objective, players aren’t

So I made the claim that games are about 95% objective, and here’s why that doesn’t mean that games should get a single score when reviewed. We don’t really appreciate games objectively, we each value the different aspects of games with different priorities.

If I play a Japanese RPG, there’s going to be a very good chance that I’ll hate it. It may very well be an absolutely accurate score by me if I give the game a 3/10, whatever that means. On the other hand, someone else might love that same game, and give it a 9/10. When I point out that this game has little to no depth in its combat, what you spend the majority of the game doing, they counter by claiming that they like the character they play as. When I point out that the world is so obviously created for the player (poor dynamism, consistency, inconsistent tone), they agree but say that the game gives them lots of freedom to do whatever they would like, and they like that the game makes them the center of attention.

Continue reading

Posted in Game Criticism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tying it all together – what makes games good

This post can be thought of as the collection of all the conclusions from my previous posts. In other words, it’s not so much what makes games good, as it is advise for how to make good games. My goal is that reading this post benefits you as a designer. Some of these are going to be brief, and there’s a reason why I felt the need to write >10,000 words previously. But without much further ado:

Continue reading

Posted in Game Design | Leave a comment

Game Worlds

Do you want to be in this world?

Why is it that sometimes when we play a game, we immediately love being in that world? This is a question I’ve tried to answer, and partially have answered, but I still don’t know completely. The best I’ve been able to come up with, is that we want world that are consistent, dynamic, have ambiance, and both plausible and interesting logic. I’ve been putting this one off for longer than I ought to have. The long list of things above are evidence that I don’t fully understand the topic. However, I don’t need to fully understand the topic to understand it well enough to have a useful understanding.

Continue reading

Posted in Game Design | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


Kind of a cheat category. Lack of bugs, menus functional and consistent with the tone of the game, low or non-existent loading times, small footprint on the hard-drive. These things all improve the quality of a game, but I found it difficult to make a list for them. Technical Proficiency, Menus, seemed like they would work properly and I may add those back later.

I wrote that back in the post “What Makes Games Good“. I’ve since made better sense of some things that were floating around in my mind, but I can’t claim that everything is nice and neat.

Continue reading

Posted in Game Design, Programming | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment