I don't think the Archer is a Modern Elephant, although I am confused on how exactly it moves. There seem to be restrictions on leaping to the second square, mentioned to be only possible for a capture. But does that mean it is never possible to move there when it is empty (FcA) or can you still slide there if the first square is also empty (FmnAcA)?
The Prince here does not include orthogonal steps, the Centaur normally does. (FN vs KN)
The Wizard is a limited-range Griffon, not a full-blown one.
I agree that it is awful to use the Amazon symbol for a Nightrider. If a piece set is no good for representing the pieces you want, you should extend it or use another piece set that does a better job, not use non-matching images.
Also note that the Lancer is a very weak piece, because it can only acces 25% of the board. I would advice against its use. Either equip it with some extra moves to break the high-order color binding, or replace it by a more interesting piece.
And just as an observation: you have several other color-bound pieces (Bishop, General, Falconer), and you start all of those that are on the same wing on the same square shade. Was this intentional? It would seem more natural to me to start Falconer and nearby Bishop on opposit shade.
Finally, I don't think the section on notation serves any purpose. When playing on-line or against an AI people would have to accept whatever notation the computer deems fit (and as a programmer I would certainly not use what you propose here), and when playing over the board (if anyone would ever do that...), people would use whatever notation they are most comfortable with anyway. It is not like the suggestions given here are so brilliant that people would have never thought about those by themselves. Variants with pieces that do require a two-letter abbreviation are quite common, and chess-variant players can be expected to be familiar with a way to handle that.
That is not entirely accurate:
I don't think the Archer is a Modern Elephant, although I am confused on how exactly it moves. There seem to be restrictions on leaping to the second square, mentioned to be only possible for a capture. But does that mean it is never possible to move there when it is empty (FcA) or can you still slide there if the first square is also empty (FmnAcA)?
The Prince here does not include orthogonal steps, the Centaur normally does. (FN vs KN)
The Wizard is a limited-range Griffon, not a full-blown one.
I agree that it is awful to use the Amazon symbol for a Nightrider. If a piece set is no good for representing the pieces you want, you should extend it or use another piece set that does a better job, not use non-matching images.
Also note that the Lancer is a very weak piece, because it can only acces 25% of the board. I would advice against its use. Either equip it with some extra moves to break the high-order color binding, or replace it by a more interesting piece.
And just as an observation: you have several other color-bound pieces (Bishop, General, Falconer), and you start all of those that are on the same wing on the same square shade. Was this intentional? It would seem more natural to me to start Falconer and nearby Bishop on opposit shade.
Finally, I don't think the section on notation serves any purpose. When playing on-line or against an AI people would have to accept whatever notation the computer deems fit (and as a programmer I would certainly not use what you propose here), and when playing over the board (if anyone would ever do that...), people would use whatever notation they are most comfortable with anyway. It is not like the suggestions given here are so brilliant that people would have never thought about those by themselves. Variants with pieces that do require a two-letter abbreviation are quite common, and chess-variant players can be expected to be familiar with a way to handle that.