Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Hi Malcolm,
Thanks for your interest in this variant. The move to the 3rd / 6th ranks for the Pawns was the last modification made to the starting array, and was an idea taken from Makruk (Thai Chess).
It was done to balance the loss of the Pawn's initial 2-step movement and the loss of castling. I did not see the undefended a, e, and l pawns as detrimental to the game.
The number of pieces for each compound type was based upon my estimates of their relative strengths - one of each for the more powerful and two of the least powerful Courier. In naming the piece types I try to ensure that the initial letters of the names different from each other.
Cheers
Graeme
2 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Hi Graeme,
I note that the pawns start on the third row, and hence pawns in ranks a, e and l are undefended in their starting positions. whereas some of the other pieces are triply-defended. Was this your intention when arranging these pieces? Most games with a pawn-row on the third row do so because there are at least one or two pieces on the second row, but that isn't the case here.
I also notice you have one each of the Queen and the Marshall but two each of the other queen-equivalent piece, namely (in this game) the Courier. (The Bishop-Knight compound piece has also been called the Princess, the Archbishop and the Cardinal, and these are only the three most popular names).
These issues aren't necessarily faults. I just wanted to know your thoughts on the matter.