Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Namik probably didn't realise that he was doing anything wrong, what i
can't understand is why chessvariants site even put the game up!
if you talked to the guy first, he probably would of changed name ...

I notice that the Chess variant pages are also inheriting another problem of Usenet: Poor variants (as in, with bad names, or with poorly written rules) are getting a lot more comments and attention than good variants (cough, cough shameless plug cough, cough).

- Sam

Rules question:
Do pawns promote (optionally) on the 8th rank, as in Grand Chess, or on
the 10th rank?  The language of the rules states that the rule is the same
as Chess, but Chess only has 8 ranks...  I would assume they promote as in
Grand Chess, since this game is basically Grand Chess + an Amazon.  Of
course, if the game is a Grand Chess derivative, why then do the rules not
say 'rules are the same as Grand Chess, except...' instead of saying they
are the same as Orthodox Chess with exceptions?

Calling a film something 2 is appropriate when it is a true sequel to the original. Do you know of any example of a film that was appropriately named something 2 without being a true sequel to a prior film named something? I think calling some game Chess 2 or Shogi 2 is about as appropriate as calling Buffy the Vampire Slayer Nosferatu 2.

Below is a link to a site apparently written by the inventor of Grand Chess (and other variants); in it's coverage of that variant, it mentions that the inventor strove for 'completeness' (by adding the Archbishop and Chancellor piece types that he felt were missing from FIDE chess) - similar to the inventor of Amazon Grand Chess, I kind of feel logical completeness might mean including an amazon piece for each side (possibly the inventor of Grand Chess rejected this simply due to having an odd number of pieces in each army as a result). Note in my 10x10 variant Sac Chess, which has had a lot of testing, having 2 amazons per side (though on a crowded board initially) doesn't seem to hurt the quality of the play in games much at all.

Anyway, for a variant idea I'm still considering, I came up with an alternative setup to that of Amazon Grand Chess (I thought reverse symmetry for the setup can be used, to make the odd number of pieces per side seem less asymmetrical, IMO). On a seperate website from the one below I saw some posters wishing that Grand Chess used normal promotion rules, as in chess (so that the board's edge is made use of for one thing), and also that it allowed a king to leap up to 3 squares once per game, to make up for the absence of castling, so I'm considering these as possible refinements, too. I'll also mention that one thing I don't quite like about the Amazon Grand Chess setup is that the amazon and queen of each side are doubled on a file (albeit behind a pawn) before play even begins... Now, here's the link I mentioned:

http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/how-i-invented-games-and-why-not/chess-variants-are-easy

[edit: Here's a link to a discussion I alluded to, about how Grand Chess might be improved:]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGrand_chess

[edit2: Here's a diagram of a CV idea of mine that might be called Grandiose Chess, which I'll study at leisure (pawns would promote on last rank to any piece type in the setup, except for a king, and an unmoved king that's not in check can leap up to three squares away to an unoccupied square on the first or second rank that's not under attack, regardless of any pieces or enemy attacks that may be in between):][edit3: I'm not liking this so much just now - perhaps it's a worse version of Grand Chess, or even of my own Sac Chess:]