Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

No well worked out starting array.

The opposing Camels can attack the Knights immediately, when they are developed on their most natural squares. Since the Camel is of minor value than the Knight (being a colourbound piece)this makes opening play rather awkward.
Superficially the corner squares seem to be a good place for the Camel in the opening. But let us consider to remove them to the b and i files. Opening play would be much less restricted now.

That also would have 2 further advantages. 

1. The Camel now would have 2 natural developing squares in the 3rd rank instead of only 1

2. One of them would be in competition with the most natural developing square of the Knight. So the player has to choose.

All that would cause opening play to be more variable.

And finally, involving the Knight in castling seams unnatural. Why not involving the Guard instead? He is more difficult to develop.

Squirrel Chess must get some examinations. I'm playing a game on Game Courier. According to the Game Courier page, where the rules are not enforced, the board is 8x8 and the Guard plays as a Man, a non-royal King. The link "Squirrel chess" on that Game Courier page of Squirrel Chess sends to a page of "The rule of chess".

Now, I have also found this page on which I am now, "Squirrel Chess". Here the board is 10x10 and the Guard is like at Hiashatar, a piece moving like a King but also deflecting attacking pieces.

So they are 2 different games! Same name and same author.

Can the inventor clarify these and/or the editors be aware of this situation which is confusing?

Thank you

A 50-move rule like in orthodox Chess is completely pointless in games where Paws can also move backwards; the player that does not agree with the draw would simply move a Pawn back and forth to reset the ply counter. To make any sense the counter should only be reset on irreversible moves (captures and promotions).