Comments by ultimatecoolster

I do not like it when people view the Tower as the equivalent of a Rook. It is the equivalent of the Crooked Rook. (You'll see if you connect the cells' centres.) Thank you, Graeme, for including both pieces. In a subvariant, you could include the 'Elephant', the triangular equivalent of a Crooked Bishop. You could replace the Queen with the Elephant.

This game is great. I have 2 complaints, however. 1 is that there is a bias for the medium tan for the Elephant's boundness. Perhaps you could change the setup and have 3 Elephants per side. 2 is that the board is too cramped, just as in your other game, Step and Circle Trig Chess.

This game suffers from 3 weak Pawns. There is also an early pin with the Rook and early checkmate with a Pawn and Rook. This isn't a terrible game, and I understand you were taking a break, but I still think it could be better.

This is a creative game. I have a suggestion: Have the holes in the opening setup filled with a Marshall and Cardinal.

Simply swap the Rook and the adjacent Knight and it's fixed!

I do not have Zillions due to my computer's drivers becoming corrupt. I have been using public computers for the past month.

I would be interested. I could help you make a game out of that idea if you'd like. I'm very good at making games with a certain attribute or restriction.

I just got an interesting idea. Allow pieces to move any amount of steps. Yes, that's right! Every step it gets more awkward, so they are not that powerful. The Rook is quite the unusual piece. It can move only like a normal Rook if the opposite square is empty. It's like a reverse-equispacious Rook.

You mean the 47-cell variant contest? ;)

Hey, Joe. I don't understand the Rhino. Can you explain The Charge better?

The pieces in this game don't coincide very well, and the King is too complex.

Why is there a bare facing rule? Did you mean bare King rule?

When I read the description, I thought you meant the board was physically filled with the pieces. Heck, it almost is!

The rules seem to contradict the preset. Is it a win or loss when you have no Wazirs?

I don't like this game that much. You have strengthened the royal and defensive pieces while decreasing the amount of offensive pieces. The Point is covered by the Rook, too, which is unlike Minishogi where it defends against the opponent's.

Princes should not take part in promotion sequences, because they have no counterpart. Princes are stronger than Bishops, by the way.

You might as well call this game Ultimate Xiang Qi. The Ferry variant is a tiny bit more aggressive, however, which makes it OK, balanced by the awkwardness of the Ferry.

I'll try to include diagrams.

Fergus, here is the Game Courier board, modified for aesthetic appeal rather than trueness to Xiang Hex' colors:

Would it be better if I used your Abstract set?

Well, Charles, my intent was to balance orthogonal and diagonal movement and have omni-directional pieces rather than have each piece combined with its counterpart. The Knight is neither orthogonal nor diagonal, and is already omni-directional compared to the other Shatranj pieces. By the way, if you want a smiley face next to your name and a link to your profile instead of a question mark, put your username in the box instead of your real name when you make a comment.

That Palace less space than in Xiang Qi, which is terrible, considering the power of the other pieces.

Did you miss that?