Single Comment

I am ever so happy to hear that somebody has played and enjoyed the game. Of course, it is not my greatest artistic achievement, but it is one of the earliest examples of what sort of variants can be designed with different armies, and of how the theory of piece values can help the designer of a chess variant. My own experience with different armies is that it's a lot more fun. One player believes that his R is worth more than the other player's NW, the other player believes the NW is actually better, and both fight to prove their ideas are better. <p>Your odds-giving idea is excellent. I had some discussions of odds-giving onmy scs pages, but those are long since lost; perhaps I should revisit the idea. <p>If you have played Go, you will appreciate how much a comprehensive system of odds-giving can add to a game, and you will appreciate that Chess (including chess variants) would be much better if there were a generally accepted system for it. <p>Unfortunately, the value of an extra Pawn (for example) depends on the average strength of the two opponents, and therefore it is probably not possible to have a comprehensive system at this time. <p>Instead, you have used the progressive-odds system, which is self-adjusting and which has always been known to be well-suited to a long series of games between the same two opponents -- a perfect choice. <p>Continue to enjoy!