Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

It is unclear to me what "being in check" means if you have two royal pieces that have to be captured both, as these could never be captured in the same move. Normally "check" means you are one move away from losing. But in variants with extinction royalty you can ignore attacks on the royals when you have more than one. So if the Prince gets attacked, must this be resolved, or can you ignore that? And if the King gets attacked while you still have a Prince? What does it mean that "both are checkmated"? Pieces can be checked, but checkmate or stalemate are properties of the entire position. It could be that both Prince and King are attacked, neither of these can move to a safe square, and the attackers cannot be blocked. But that the Prince can capture the protected attacker of the King. This loses you the Prince, but resolves the check on King.

I see no justification for using piece symbols that normally designate other pieces. Especially if these symbols are indicative for the move, such as the Crowned Bishop. Why intentionally sow confusion in a variant that has so many pieces already?

I agree with HG's comments. I hope they will be taken into account. Additional remarks: * Archer is what is more commonly called (Modern) Elephant. * Lioneer is much closer to Chu Shogi's Lion than to Murray's Lion, moreove Murray's Lion is a mere mistake from this respectable error who, at that old time, simply misunderstood the rules of Chu Shogi. So, why not simply say that Lioneer is similar to Chu Shogi's Lion? * Using the Amazon symbol for a the Nightrider is regrettable. The intention of using an existing physical set should not influence the rules, this is only adding more confusion. * Prince is what is more commonly called a Centaur. * Wizard is the Gryphon/Eagle. As far as 3D-sets, I am personally advising F.Houdebert and now developping my own project. It can be seen here: https://www.thingiverse.com/kazo65/designs. All these are currently in a validation phase.

That is not entirely accurate:

I don't think the Archer is a Modern Elephant, although I am confused on how exactly it moves. There seem to be restrictions on leaping to the second square, mentioned to be only possible for a capture. But does that mean it is never possible to move there when it is empty (FcA) or can you still slide there if the first square is also empty (FmnAcA)?

The Prince here does not include orthogonal steps, the Centaur normally does. (FN vs KN)

The Wizard is a limited-range Griffon, not a full-blown one.

I agree that it is awful to use the Amazon symbol for a Nightrider. If a piece set is no good for representing the pieces you want, you should extend it or use another piece set that does a better job, not use non-matching images.

Also note that the Lancer is a very weak piece, because it can only acces 25% of the board. I would advice against its use. Either equip it with some extra moves to break the high-order color binding, or replace it by a more interesting piece.

And just as an observation: you have several other color-bound pieces (Bishop, General, Falconer), and you start all of those that are on the same wing on the same square shade. Was this intentional? It would seem more natural to me to start Falconer and nearby Bishop on opposit shade.

Finally, I don't think the section on notation serves any purpose. When playing on-line or against an AI people would have to accept whatever notation the computer deems fit (and as a programmer I would certainly not use what you propose here), and when playing over the board (if anyone would ever do that...), people would use whatever notation they are most comfortable with anyway. It is not like the suggestions given here are so brilliant that people would have never thought about those by themselves. Variants with pieces that do require a two-letter abbreviation are quite common, and chess-variant players can be expected to be familiar with a way to handle that.

Sorry, my mistakes. I have edited my previous comment to avoid confusion for the author.

I've altered the text to reflect the feedback here. (I think I got it all; I lost the edits, and tried to redo them, so I might have missed one or two.) It's all quite good; I especially appreciate the points on the Lioneer (I hadn't looked closely enough at the Chu Shogi Lion), Lancer, and position of colorbound pieces.

Regarding that last item, I'm switching the Falconer and Spy, and the Lancer and Lioneer. Besides giving better balance (no, that wasn't intentional), the new positions seem more logical from a "character" perspective.

I'll have to wait for another day (probably Thursday) to mess with correcting the graphics (including the layout example), but I'll lean toward more traditional symbols. (The flipped horse for the Nightrider still really bugs me -- though on the other hand, I hadn't found a proper symbol for the Lancer until about 10 minutes ago, and wouldn't have if you hadn't spoken up about it.) I'll post here when that's done.

In addition to the change in the Lancer's move, I'd appreciate a good look at the changes I'm considering for Archer and Tank (in the Notes section).

I've changed the icons (and, as stated, a couple of positions) on the Setup board. If this passes muster with you guys, I can start the more laborious work on the individual pieces' graphics. (Including the Archer and Tank, depending on what you think of the proposed changes to their moves.)

Hi, I still have few comments, to be taken gently despite the necessary critical tone (my language is not elaborated enough):

* It is written "(The article does mention a Dog, which makes a bit more sense logically, but it's an incredibly weak piece, and the variants aren't much better.)"

>> I don't understand what is about. Which article? The one of Fairy Chess piece on WP? There are "dogs" at different places there, which one are you talking about? Not sure that this mention is really useful for presenting your variant. As it addresses an external webpage and as it is not clear, better remove this comment.

* Archer is given as "The Archer moves 1 or 2 spaces diagonally. It can jump the first space if it's capturing in the second."

>> After re-reading this and looking at the diagram, I persist, contrarily to HG, to see the possibility that this piece is really a FA, so like the (modern) Elephant (as used in my variants). We need the author to clarify this. Can the Archer move to the 2nd square diagonally if this square is empty? Or it may go there only for capturing?

* General is given as "The General moves diagonally like a Bishop, or orthogonally on every other space. Note that, while this makes the General color-locked, it doesn't jump the spaces of the other color when moving orthogonally; those spaces must be open."

>> "or orthogonally on every other space". What does that mean? That DON't make obvious that it is colorbound!

>> "Those space must be open". Which spaces? All spaces, or all spaces in the path, or all space in the path of the same color, or all spaces in the path of the opposite colors? According to the diagram, that piece can move as Bishop or Dabbaba-rider. It would be less confusing to say it so.

* It is often mentionned that "space must be open". Open to what? IMO a space is free or occupied. (Open space is what we have in our offices, I smile). Please correct if you mean "free" (or void).

* Lancer is given as "The Lancer jumps two squares diagonally, two spaces orthogonally, or one of each (this option is basically twice the move of a Knight)."

>> according to this definition, the Lancer would reach other spaces. For example, from e5 to e7 (through c7 or g7). You mean "two spaces orthogonally outward".

* The icon of the Nightrider in the move diagram has not been changed. It is still the one of an Amazon.

* Pawn: what is the "far row"? Many rows are far there.

* Wizard is given as "The Wizard moves one space diagonally, and then may continue 1-2 spaces orthogonally outward.(Unlike the usual Wizard, this one is not colorbound, but also does not jump.)"

>> If it "may continue", I understand that it doesn't jump if the first diagonal square is occupied. But then it is said that it also jumps. So, this description is confusing.

* The reference to Thingiverse is not recommended as these files may change independtly of the Chess Variant Pages. For example the mention "(the Spy is grouped with the Wizard)." is already no longer true.

* HG's comments about the end-of-game seem not answered. As it was said, a King is not in "checkmate". Either it is in check, or it is checkmated if it cannot escape from check. If the King is checked, with no possibility to escape and in the same time the Prince is threatened, and will be threatened where ever it goes, then their owner may move the Prince, even though it goes under another threat. Then the attacker seizes the King, the Prince becomes a new King which is immediatly under threat and has to get out of check (it was not yet a King when it moves in the threat, so it is allowed). If it can, then the game continues, if it can't, it is checkmated. I don't see the need for a more complex rule. But being "in checkmate" has no meaning.

In short I recommend more editing efforts for this variant. Hope iy helps.

If the Archer had been FA, its move diagram would have shown just the curverd arrows in the A squares.But instead it shows this arrow together with a red X. That leads me to think something else must be meant, but it is not obvious to me what. Since X is often used for capture, it might mean capture only (cA). But this seems at odds with the verbal description that it "moves 1 or 2 squares diagonally".

"Every other square" does mean "one, and then one not, repetitively". But I think it would be clearer to say "slides an even number of steps orthogonally". I think the term 'slides' already implies that all squares between the origin and destination have to be empty, but to press the point this can be explicitly added. (So the move is a lame Dababba rider, nDD, rather than a normal one).

I always use the term 'empty' as the opposit of 'occupied', rather than 'open' or 'free'.

I'm correcting most of your points, but addressing these here:

General: I've tried rewording this (again). Hopefully it's clear enough now; if not, I'm not sure how to better explain it. "Moves orthogonally an even number of spaces"?

Lancer: After your point on how little of the board this piece can reach, I've changed the moves to an "and/or" option; in addition to those shown on the outdated move diagram, it can move two spaces in any direction. I simply haven't updated any of the move diagrams because, as I indicated, I'm waiting to see if you think the icons on the new layout board look right (as well as the different Archer and Tank move/captures).

Nightrider: Same point about my waiting to update the move diagrams.

Pawn: I haven't been able to remember the proper term for Row 16 for White/Row 1 for Black.

Wizard: Reread the description. It's stated that the Wizard here "does not jump" (emphasis added).

I'm not sure how to diagram the Archer's outer moves. The Archer can slide to the second square, or jump there if it's capturing.

And thanks for the term for the "every other square," HG.

In Parlett's notation (as expanded on in the Wikipedia article, and as far as I understand it), the Archer is 1-2X,c~2X (pending decision on the move change), and the General is nX,2+&.

Similarly, the Lancer was originally (4,2), but has become 2✴,(4,2). I just haven't updated the move graphic.

I had thought to put a Parlett's notation (I have a little trouble understanding Betza) with each piece, as well as a point score for those who care about such things.

OK, I now understand how you want the Archer to move. But the move diagram is confusing; the red X suggests to me that the square can only be reached by capture. And in the notes section you seem to use the same symbol for the alternative moves when this is indeed the case.

If I understand the Partlett notation correctly, the moves you added to the Lancer do not cure the fact that it can only access 1/4 of the board.

I think a 3+,(4,2) would be a good choice!

HG: Should I just use the plain dot for those spaces, then? Or would it be better to just ditch that entirely, and go straight to the alternate?

Aurelian: 3+,~(4,2) for the Lancer? That could work. I'd also consider ~(4,2),c2-3✴ (the original long leap, but can also capture 2-3 spaces away (non-leaping) in any direction, making the piece no longer colorbound).

Open: Since nothing's been said about the new icons on the Setup board, I think I'll assume that they're fine, and start updating the move illustrations as soon as we iron out the Archer, Lancer, and Tank.

And what about the Tank alternate?

It would be better to communicate with the Betza's notation than the Parlett's notation. The former is more explicit and requires a very small effort to learn what you need here.

Concerning the Wizard, yes I misread you but when you write "Unlike the usual Wizard, this one is not colorbound, but also does not jump" it led me in error. Why don't you say, simply, "Unlike the usual Wizard, this one does not jump and is not colorbound"?

Yes, that's much clearer for the Wizard. Thank you.

Attempting to translate some of the preceding information to Betza's notation:

The Lancer as Aurelian suggests is W3(4,2), while my counter idea is m(4,2)cDH.

The Archer is currently F2cA; the alternate (using one of the extensions from the Wikipedia article) is mF2[crM](2,1). Right now I'm thinking to use the Alternate, simply because it's easier to diagram. (If I do, I'll probably also use the alternate for the Tank.)

I'm not even sure how to notate either of the Tank's two options.

I meant HDY. That is a (0,3) leaper combined with the (4,2) leaper!

Since nothing's been said about the new icons on the Setup board, I think I'll assume that they're fine, and start updating the move illustrations as soon as we iron out the Archer, Lancer, and Tank.

Well, that is a bit of a rash conclusion. I did remark on the choice of the images in a more general way initially, and saw no need to repeat that. E.g. you use a symbol that obviously depicts and is commonly used for Crowned Rook as a Chancellor. While there does exist an image in the set you are using for Chancellor.

For the Princess you use a symbol that has no strong association to any piece, and you might argue that this is justified because it is not an ordinary BN compound, but a potential successor of the Queen. But that is just a minor detail, and I think the advantage of readers immediately recognizing the piece as a BN compound by looking at the setup diagram would far exceed the convenience of a reminder that it might be upgraded to Queen at some point during the game. So I still count it as a disservice to the reader that you don't use the image that is commonly used to depict a BN.

The verbal description of the Archer would have been clearer if you would have said "can slide up to two squares diagonally, but also jump directly to the second square for a capture.

Note that you would have to adapt the Lion's move diagram for the new move, where all destinations in the second ring are now jumps, and the adjacent squares would deserve some special smbol (a star?) to indicate that it cannot just move there, but also continue after capture.

Archer: I don't understand what mF2crM is.

F2cA means it moves/captures on 1st sq or moves/captures on 2nd square if 1st sq is empty or captures on 2nd sq when 1st sq is occupied. It cannot move on 2nd square if both 1st and 2nd are empty. Is that what you want? IMO, this is too irregular. It is your game, sure, but I would recommend to have FA, i.e. the Elephant (that you may call as you want) to simplify.

Chancellor: RN

Falconer: my apologies, saying this one in Betza's is not so easy. HG knows.

General: BnDD

Lancer: DY as on the diagram. HDY as suggested by Aurelian.

Lioneer: not very easy again. Seems to me that it is similar to the Warlock of HG's Elven Chess. Then, it is KNADmabKcaKcabK.

Nightrider:NN

Pawn: ifmW4fmWfcF

Prince: FN

Princess: BN

Sergeant: fFfW3smW

Soldier: ifmW4fmWsmWfcF

Spy: I don't know if you accept that it moves to 2nd sq if 1st is occupied? If you don't, then, W2N

Tank: not simple again. RjR may work maybe.

Wait for confirmation though, they are better experts than me on this site.

Consider that you can test yourself these Betza's notation to check if it is what you want with HG's Play-test applet:

https://www.chessvariants.com/page/MSplay-test-applet-for-chess-variants

It cannot move on 2nd square if both 1st and 2nd are empty.

That is incorrect. F2 can move without capturing to the 2nd when the first is empty. This is indeed a bit irregular, but I don't think there is anything against that.

The Falconer is FaFaaF (one, two or three diagonal steps). The diagonal version of a Tenjiku Shogi 'area move'. I would not be surprised if this was a Jetan piece.

The soldier can be further abbreviated to ifmW4fsmWfcF. (It is possible to combine different directions on the same 'atom', but not different ranges.)

Tank WjR would be the recommended notation. RjR is not wrong, but all distant moves would be indicated twice if the 1st square was empty.

As I understand from the move diagram the Spy slides, so W2N is correct. Otherwise the D squares would have contained the jump symbol.

Note that the Chu Shogi Lion can also make the two King steps as a direct leap, which is more than a King that moved twice could do. If you just want the double King step it would be KmcaKmcabK.

Thank you HG. That Archer is so confusing. So, if it is F2cA, it cannot move to an empty 2nd square if the 1st is occupied. Do I have it righ now?

Really, this is too bizarre, impossible to remember.

Responding roughly in order:

Chancellor: Ah, OK -- the Rook/Knight icon. I'll switch that up.

Princess: Use the Bishop/Knight icon for that. Got it.

I'll go change both of those ASAP. I trust those are the only incorrect icons on the board?

Archer: HG: That is indeed a much better wording. Thank you! Jean-Louis: In XBetza, [crM] indicates capture without moving. The applet (thank you very much for that!) can give me a mnB2cN for most of the listing; I'd have to change the c to [crM] to make it mnB2[crM]N. Similarly, I can get mRcNcZ for the Tank's alternative, but I have to manually make it mR[crM]N[crM]Z to indicate non-moving captures. (Also, I'm thinking of adding [crM]C.)

Lion: The lion can simply move one space (unless, of course, that space is occupied by a friendly piece). Basically, it moves like a King, but can then take a second turn. (I think I should also note in the text description that, unless it's surrounded, it can move to an adjacent square and back, effectively becoming a Pass.) I don't want it to be able to jump, though. Would that make it KmcaK?

Lancer: What I'm proposing, I think, would be notated as mDYcnDcnAcnHcnG.

side note: You guys are definitely making this a better game.

Jean-Louis: You now understand the Archer. The confusion is part of why I'm leaning toward switching to the alternate moves for it and the Tank. (They would move normally, but "shoot" to capture.)

Just seeing if these icons are acceptable for the Chancellor and (especially) Princess.

The [crM] is from Bex notation, which is another extension of Betza notation than the XBetza that is used by the Interactive Diagram. "Capture without moving" a.k.a. rifle capture is written in XBetza as a 2-leg move back and forth, where the first leg captures in the normal chess way, and the second then returns the piece to where it came from. So cabK describes a King move that captures (c), and the again (a) a King move that steps back (b).  So it would rifle-capture to all adjacent squares.For a sliding rifle capture such as a Rook you would have to write caibR, where the i in the second leg ('iso') indicates it has to be as many steps as the previous leg.

Distant rifle capture is excessively dangerous, especially when it jumps. There basically is no defense against it other than moving the threatened piece away. Which you can do for only one of the pieces that gets forked. And the alternative move for the War Machine has an enormous forking power. So my guess is that it would be way too strong, and that the whole game will just degenerate into War Machines massacring the opponent.

Also note that the alternative move for the Archer makes it a very slow piece. Although it is technically possible to use it in the opponent's camp, you will have to invest so many tempi to get it there, that you probably cannot afford it. To a somewhat lesser extent this also applies to pieces that can only step 2 squares. But if such pieces stay in their own camp, the defender has a large majority there, that you will not be able to beat with only your fast-moving pieces, not even when you are several of those ahead. You can only overcome the defence by bringing over your slow pieces, which will make the game very long.