Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

There is already another variant called Fibonacci Chess on this site.  I
came across it by random link:

http://www.chessvariants.com/multimove.dir/fibonacci.html

The same variant (I think) was though of by Ralph Betza, but not named.

http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/prnew.html

Here is a clarification edit for the move sequence: 

1. B W / 2. B W / 3. B W / 4. W B / 5. B W / 6. W B / 7. W B / 8. B W /
9.
W B / 10. W B

which could be re-written as:

1. bW wB / 2. bW Wb / 3. bW wB / 4. wW bB / 5. bW wB / 6. wW bB / 7. wW
bB
/ 8. bW wB / 9. wW bB / 10. wW bB 

The lower case letter is the player who 'owns' a set of pieces, and the
upper case letter is the set of pieces that player is moving. So this
would essentially be: 'for Move 1: the Black player moves a White piece
in lieu of the White player taking his own turn, and then the White
player
moves a Black piece in lieu of the Black player taking his own turn' --
and this would happen for moves 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... etc. 

The other variant, where instead of switching one player plays both his
moves as well as his opponent's for certain turns, would then be as
follows: 

1. bW wB / 2. bW bB / 3. wW wB / 4. wW bB / 5. bW bB / 6. wW bB / 7. wW
bB
/ 8. wW wB / 9. wW bB / 10. wW bB

I hope this makes things clearer.

Matthew, 

   This is NOT a progressive chess variant. No matter who is doing the
moving, one White piece moves, then one Black piece moves. While it is
true that a player may make 2-3 moves in succession, one of them will be
for the opponent's pieces, not his own. 

   I am aware of the other FibChess, but that is a progressive variant,
as
far as I could tell.

Fair enough.  Although it isn't good practice to rename variants, the
other one really should have progressive in it's name.  Progressive
Fibocanni Chess is the most logical name for that game.

I still think you should keep the Fibocanni link in your name, so you can
make variants on other number patterns with the same rules.  'Fibocanni
Switcheroo' or whatever.

On the game itself, I'm still a bit unclear how the moving the
opponent's pieces works.  I understand when it happens now, but it needs
to be clarified how check works etc.  Are you always 'playing' for one
side, or are you trying to win with your current side?  It seems to be
the
former but it's not clear.

Matt, you are correct - if you are playing the White pieces, you are always
trying to win for White, even if you are making a move with the black
pieces. That is why you cannot make illegal moves. 

I do agree PFC sounds best for the other, original, Fibonacci variant. It
IS a progressive variant. As far as an improved name for my own, that's
tougher, as while it is one basic idea it has elements of many different
games (it's almost like a game of Double Agent, except every piece could
be a double agent!). Maybe it should be called Sequential Misdirection
Chess - as you will most likely 'mis-direct' your opponent's pieces at
the pre-determined move intervals. The main variant could then be
Fibonacci Misdirection Chess. 

Thoughts?

Just a follow-up, something I thought of: perhaps you should not be able to
check your own pieces with your opponent's move. That seems to give a huge
advantage to Black: as Black will play White's move first, White on
Black's move will frequently have few options as he has to move the Black
piece out of check. This is maybe less of a problem in the variant where a
player 'steals' his opponent's move instead of the players switching
for a turn, as if a player gives check to his own pieces, he will be the
one who has to spend a turn getting out of it. 

I like my idea but I am realizing how difficult it is to write about!! :)
Oh, and I'm registered now as well.