Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

the Patient Pawns in Queen of the Night Chess may also move sideways. Is this the case in IX ?

I might add that the dropping mechanism in this set of variants has a certain flaw. It's possible, in normal chess, to attack a piece on the opp's first rank. In this game, assuming a similar capture happens, and that there's no way to prevent the capturing piece from 'escaping' in a sense, it can vacate the square, have the spare piece droppes, then capture a second piece. It's highly unlikely that players will allow this kinda capture, but it's still an annoyance.

There's also no retreat mechanism, maneuvering, in a chess sense, can prove difficult.

Also, doesn't that make the board particulary 'crowded' ?

As a possible solution, consider this : the piece is dropped on that square as soon as the piece originally occupying it is captured (in a circe-style.) If this square is occupied, the piece is dropped anyway, destroying any piece (enemy or friendly) that is under it. A legal possibilty is having the King on a knight's square, the knight is still on the board, it's illegal to place the knight under attack, since capturing it will destroy the king.

The pieces behind the king are replaced by a Queen capture. Pieces behind pawns are dropped as soon as the pawn leaves its file, or promotes, or is captured.

Abdul-Rahman, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, these Patient Pawns are exactly as you described them for Queen of the Night Chess (as with the Queen of the Night pawns, they don't have the jumping mechanism they have in Seenschach).

I read over your description of the flaw a few times, but didn't understand it. It seems to me that most of the time, the pieces that are behind the rows add an additional, indirect layer of protection. Not saying that's good or bad.

Yes, the board will become very crowded, true, especially the ones with two layers of pieces or pawns. I want to note: I do not necessarily see this as a problem.

Your alternate proposal is very interesting. In those FIDE Chess Kamil variants where there are powerful substitutes, this could have a very strange effect. You will be, for example, reluctant in some cases to win a piece because you know that winning that (e.g.) knight will immediately bring on a much more powerful piece (e.g.) archbishop. Of course, one can capture the knight and then sac one's own knight in some cases, so your proposal still has cachet even for such variants with stronger substitutes. It's worth exploring.

Your observation of the king on the knight's square is neat and curious.

Another possibility would be for each side to choose when the new piece or pawn enters the game and can only do so if that particular starting square (say g1 for the piece behind the knight) happens to be empty. That could still lead to crowded games though.

Still another possibility, one Dan Troyka proposed, is to let the substitute pieces have a board of their own and let them move around on that board and choose to enter when they wish, while only being able to capture on the main board (Troyka may have envisioned them being able to capture on either though).

Assume this very simple position : 

White : K anywhere, B b7
Black : K anywhere, R a8 , M behind R

After 1.Bxa8 any 2.Bb7(M emerges) .. ok, this is not quite what i had in mind when i typed that comment (I was under the impression that the 'emerging' is a separate move,) but the Marshal is under attack. Unless it can get outa there quickly (which is difficult in the usually crowded positions this game gives,) it's lost.