Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This and the original are interesting games (more so the original). However, I think a move that moves or jumps to the second square and then slides from that square in the same direction (jR/jB/jQ) would be much a more effective choice for the sliding moves. As it stands now, no single piece is capable of delivering checkmate with the help of its own King.

@A.M. DeWitt
I find your suggestions (jR/jB/jQ) interesting and, with your permission, I will include and test them in the next version.

As it stands now, no single piece is capable of delivering checkmate with the help of its own King.

This note seems to refer to the 'original'. Bn Em has made a critical comment on this, which cannot be ignored. I have therefore set the 'original' to private and do not want to publish it.

Your comment above should not apply to the variant with the conquer mechanism. In any case, if only the AI plays, the variant always leads to checkmate or one side resigns. It is therefore playable and I would be happy if this variant were published. Thanks in advance.

As it stands now, no single piece is capable of delivering checkmate with the help of its own King.

This note seems to refer to the 'original'.

On an individual‐piece basis this applies here too; it takes at least three (perhaps even four) pieces (including the king) to deliver, let alone force, checkmate.

This should be less of a concern here though: the Conquer rule means that the total material stays the same, so there are no issues with both sides forcing a lack of sufficient mating material or suchlike (and the Knights give — albeit limited — control over the binding of captured pieces).

if only the AI plays, the variant always leads to checkmate or one side resigns

I think this is the first game I've seen where the Interactive Diagram does anything besides draw by repetition! Hardly a proof of winnability, but at least reasonably persuasive.

Since the statement of the rules seems to me clear, I've now published this

More usual names for the 'double-move Rook' would be 'lame Dabbabarider', 'lame Slip-Rook'or 'lame Panda'. Likewise there are the lame Slip-Bishop/Alfilrider and lame Slip-Queen/Alibabarider.

I had already seen the terms, but not yet with the attribute 'lame'. They are certainly common, but not very self-speaking; I thought I was doing something to improve understanding with my terms. But perhaps we shouldn't want to change the tried and tested.

Well, terms like 'Alfilrider' are very elementary, but refers to a piece that can jump over all squares it does not visit, like the leaper it was based on. The term Skip-Bishop is less commonly used for this piece; probably only when you want to stress its complementarity to the Slip-Bishop, (for which no other names are common), which boosts the rider move with a single step in the same direction, so that it can only go to the odd squares on the diagonal. (This is actually a much more interesting piece; the radial riders suffer from severe area binding, confining them to 1/4 or even 1/8 of the board, but the slip-sliders have the same board access as the slider they were based on.) The qualification 'lame' for a piece that cannot jump like it would normally do is also very common.

I think it would be better to stick to existing terminology when that is in widespread use.

I share the worry w.r.t. the severe area binding of the pieces, especially since you put most of them on the same area: all rooks and Bishops of one player are confined to the same 25% of the board, which is a different 25% from where the opponent's Rooks and Bishops are. The Bishops are furthermore confined to the same 12.5% of the board. Both Queens of a player are on the same 25% of the board. So basically the board factorizes in 4 independent quarter boards: one with two white Queens, one with two black Queens, one with two white Rooks and two white Bishops (the Bishops confined to the same half of that), and one similar for black. The conquer mechanism could transfer pieces to other areas, but only through capture by Pawns, Nightriders or Kings. Capture by Pawns you would of course avoid, and recapture by Pawns after trading would initially not happen, as the confined pieces cannot capture each other. So what remains is King and Nightriders.

We could re-order the board squares such that the confinement areas would become contiguous 4x4 areas. The Pawns and Nightriders would then get strange crooked move, leaping back and forthe between areas, but Q, R and B would become normal sliders, but confined to their 4x4 section. Looking at it that way, would you think that this game is winnable when only the two Nightriders are able to enter the enemy section? My feeling is that a player set on achieving a draw would just avoid the Nightriders from capturing any slider in their own two sections.

Looking at it that way, would you think that this game is winnable when only the two Nightriders are able to enter the enemy section? 

I think so, as the examples show. Nightriders certainly play a decisive role. Perhaps that's the appeal of the game - in combination with the conquer rule: