Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Knight to Queen Chess. Game with knights and kings and knights promoted to queens. (9x6, Cells: 54) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

💡📝Gerd Degens wrote on Wed, Mar 12 09:53 AM UTC:

This page of mine is ready for publication for the following reasons:

The rules are clear, unambiguous, and easy-to-understand.
The rules are comprehensive.
There is a locally-hosted setup image, or the setup is the same as Chess.
Locally-hosted images are being used for pieces, or only Chess pieces are being used.
The piece names are linked to Piececlopedia articles when there are any.
No code on the page is broken, or it has no code.

Bn Em wrote on Sun, Apr 20 01:13 PM UTC:

This one and Knights and Kings Chess seem closely enough related that it could be worth considering covering both on the same page, as you've done with Extended Three Pieces Chess. Though baseline promotion in this but not the other is perhaps enough of a difference that I won't insist too hard on that if you have a decent case to the contrary.

Castling with a knight is unusual enough that it's probably worth mentioning in the text where the knight ends up; the Diagram implements it of course, but as usual mentioning things explicitly tends to be useful

💡📝Gerd Degens wrote on Sun, Apr 20 03:17 PM UTC in reply to Bn Em from 01:13 PM:

I have already practiced the question of concentrating variations in one proposal in ‘Three pieces Chess’ - albeit with a heavy heart.

I have followed the discussion, especially between Kevin and H.G., but can only follow it to a limited extent.

(Off the record, I have to say that I find it somewhat unfair when ‘normal’ standards meet somewhat special circumstances and a congruence cannot be established - I don't want to describe it in detail, but you know what I mean. From my point of view, a little more empathy would be appropriate. The editors don't change anything about their standards - do they? If the editors think they're sending the wrong signals, then it's up to them to express that properly).

I can see some merit in the argument that minor changes to a basic idea require major changes to the course of the game. It's not about minor changes in the movement possibilities of pieces, it's about the effect on the course of the game. In this respect, I was a little hesitant to include the ‘Three pieces Chess extended’ variation in my ‘Three pieces Chess’ proposal.

Short text: One suggestion is as lost as the next! I can understand Kevin here.

That's why I would argue for different variants of my suggestions ‘Knight to Queen Chess’ and ‘Knights and Kings Chess’.

🔔Notification on Tue, Apr 22 08:25 AM UTC:

The author, Gerd Degens, has updated this page.

Ilya Yudovski wrote on Fri, Jun 13 07:58 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Dear editors, I think it's an interesting variant, and the page is ready for publication.