Comments by GerdDegens

Should I presume that in variant 1, a King may move to or stay on an attacked space, and in variant 2, a King may not move into or remain in check?

This is how it should be.
In variant 1, a captured king is assimilated by a king of the other side in the worst case, and the game continues until one side has captured all pieces.
In variant 2, the capture of the king ends the game.

I have now reduced the name and call the variant simply 'Conquer' - some other terms are occupied, e.g. 'Assimilation Chess', 'Fusion Chess', 'Take Over Chess'.

Following your recommendation I have not used the phrase 'starting position' in my description now.

Then thank you for pointing out that perpetual recaptures may become possible. In the description I have included a rule against perpetual recaptures.

More than I expected.

If 'Conquer's' way of assimilating captured figures into your own figure set didn't exist before, then the variant has its raison d'être. Or do you disagree just because assimilation of captured figures has already been thought about elsewhere in a different way and the spirit is the same? Then many variants should not have seen the light of day.

You don't need to create a new subject thread when you can just post a comment to the page in question

I beg your pardon, but I do not understand your post.
It is about a new proposal for a variant called 'Bull's eye', for which there is no subject thread yet. Then the only option is to create one. Or?

I don't see how addition of a Bull's Eye would solve any problem in Conquer, and Vice Versa

Bull's eye does not solve any problems in classical chess either, but complements the way of playing.

My approach is the following:
I see the way of playing classical chess and the way of playing Conquer as equivalent: Classical chess is about weakening the fighting force by capturing pieces. Conquer is about the opposite, strengthening the fighting force by conquering. In both 'equal' cases, the bull's eye supports the gameplay and complements the game. In this respect I see two independent variants, namely 'Classical Chess & Bull's eye' and 'Conquer & Bull's eye' - the former only called 'Bull's eye' for short.

If you can follow the approach you will see that I am not interested in exploding the number of variants in a combinatory way.

@ H.G./Editorial staff
Are there any reasons left against the publishing of 'Conquer'?

The originality of Conquer seems (to me) the fact that the "re-introduction" square is the square where the capturer went from.

You are quite right there and as you have already said, the rule is new. And such a clear rule is, in my opinion, positive for the strategic orientation of a game.

The variants 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi' quoted by you from Pritchard's CECV differ here.

For 'Reinforcement Chess' it reads:

A captured man changes sides and is immediately replaced by the
immediately replaced by the player who
replaces on any empty square, with 
two restrictions: ...

For 'Chessgi' it is to be read:

Like reinforcement chess, but it is not necessary to
to reinstate a captured man immediately; instead, the captor may
instead, the captor can hold him in his hand and then
place him on any vacant square, instead of making a
making a normal move. 

In my opinion, the above variants are hardly predictable for the opposing player with regard to the reinstatement of the captured piece. My variant/rule is more pragmatic and more calculable.

By the way: The variants 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi' were not known to me during the development of 'Conquer'. And I think that the rule of 'Conquer' is original and new compared to 'Reinforcement Chess' and 'Chessgi'.

and limit my editorial activities here to providing old articles with Interactive Diagrams.

O.k., I got that and thanks for your comment.
In your interactive diagram for Conquer, you had noted that ...

The consequense of this is that in the search it will at somepoint quickly encounter a position where perpetual recapture is possible. And since recaptures are always searched, no matter how deep the search already went, this leads to an infinite regression that crashes the program.

Do you think that there can or will be a solution for the problem. If not, the approach gets stuck halfway and cannot be played or tested. I would like to help, but I don't know how.

@ H.G. I can understand that with all the other interesting topics you have lost the interest in 'Conquer'. I am also sure that avoiding permanent recaptures is programmatically very complex.

Apparently the idea is not particularly new in principle if you follow Jean-Louis, on the other hand the idea did not exist yet and seems to have certain advantages.

If the conquest strategy could not take root so far, because e.g. the variants 'Reinforcement Chess' or 'Chessgi' were not interesting enough, then the Conquer variant could be a new approach - conceivable, but not very likely I fear.

As far as there is a serious discussion about whether classical chess is the ultimate solution, then the question whether the strategy of banning captured pieces from the board or adding captured pieces to one's army could be an option. But there would have to be a playable way to do this ....