Single Comment

You could always try, but I would suspect that the Chinese Cannon is too weak in the Western piece context. This piece has the same inferior mobility in the first half of the game as the rook. Probably it's enough problems with the rook. For this reason I introduced the bifurcation cannons, instead. They are stronger than the Chinese Cannon, and the Korean Cannon. Examples of relatives of the Chinese Cannon is the Crossbishop and the Crossrook.

The gustavian board is ideal for creating variants whose complexity is within human grasp, yet not too complex and long-winded. An obvious problem in Fide-Chess is that the complexity is somewhat too low (that is, for advanced players). This makes drawn games too probable. Tournament organizers often complain that players are too willing to accept a draw. But this is not the whole truth. Chess is actually rather drawish. An obvious example is the French Exchange: 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.exd5... What to do? Already at this stage we have arrived at a drawn position. Playing seriously for a win here would entail too great strategical risks. Capablanca tried to remedy this problem by introducing Capablanca's Chess. It is fun, but it could be argued that the tactical complexity here is too high for the general player. It's much about calculating variations and foreseeing combinations involving the very combinative extra pieces. The gustavian board could remedy this by its smaller size, and by introducing a pair of pieces that are less tactical (the Amazon, too, because of its high value, is less tactical than the Capablanca pieces). I have in many variants placed the knights at the corners. This seems to work very well. They are not too far away, while there exist routes to fine positions, the K3/Q3 squares, and the B4 squares, which are not easily accessible to a knight on its standard square. /Mats