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'.
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:
For 'Chessgi' it is to be read:
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'.