Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This one doesn't really make sense to me as written: no upgrade is specified for a pawn on the e file, and with the 2‐square slide they can avoid the penultimate rank entirely, which by a literal reading of the rules leaves them as ‘dead wood’ on the last rank. And the significance of the player “decid[ing] whether the move is made orthogonally or diagonally” is also lost on me; that choice would seem to be available at any time.

The specification of “Pawns on the baselines” could be taken to mean that only those on the back rank are subject to upgrading; it's unclear whether this is meant. Presumably the possibility for these to upgrade within a single move is intentional (though opportunities to reasonably forego that option are probably uncommon).

Note that the Interactive Diagram as given diverges substantially from the written description (promotions are automatic without choice on the penultimate rank, and fully unconstrained on the last one), so can't reasonably be used to fill in the gaps in the interpretation.

I think I get it as such: The pawns starting from rank 1 (9) get recharged on rank 2 (8). On field e1 is the King, so no rule for row e is needed. Skipping rank 2 seems possible, but why should a player make such kind of move? This recharging is a king of gate-in where the pieces to be gated in are already present as pawns on the initial board.

You get it quite right. I thought I had described it precisely enough. I'll have another look at it.
 

Please check again.

So, to be clear, a pawn arriving on rank 2 or 8 has a choice of promotion?

At least, that's how I'd read it were it not for the fact that the Interactive Diagram behaves quite differently from the written description: it unconditionally tranforms pawns arriving on those ranks to the piece starting on that space — even to amazonrider on the e file desptie the text specifying no recharging on that file. So either the Diagram is in error or I've gravely misunderstood the text

Is the pieces being able to capture each other from the starting position intentional?

So either the Diagram is in error or I've gravely misunderstood the text.

The diagram is okay! 

So, to be clear, a pawn arriving on rank 2 or 8 has a choice of promotion?

Why is the description interpreted in this way? A pawn that reaches ranks 2 or 8 is promoted (unconditionally); the choice is whether to enter ranks 2 or 8 straight ahead or to the right/left. Depending on the direction, he is promoted; the direction is the choice.

— even to amazonrider on the e file desptie the text specifying no recharging on that file. 

Does it say anywhere that recharging is excluded on the e-file?

Yes!

Why though?
Also, I think it'd be clearer if you typed:
"Pawns on the 2nd or 8th rank can promote to:
-RNN on file a or i
-ZZCC on file b or h
-NN on file c or g
-BNN on file d or f
-QNN on file e"
instead.

Why though?

More dynamics, faster interactions.

"Pawns on the 2nd or 8th rank can promote to:
-RNN on file a or i
- ...

This description somewhat loses the fact that a pawn that starts on b1, for example, can become either RNN or ZZCC or NN on rank 2. I think this choice should be included in the description.

The Pawn's movement already implies a choice.
Another way to explain the promotion rules:
Upon reaching the 2nd or the 8th rank, a Pawn promotes to the piece that started on that space.

I like this formula and have adopted it. Many thanks.

Ok, this clarifies that I had, after all, completely misunderstood the original formulation:

Why is the description interpreted in this way?

Does it say anywhere that recharging is excluded on the e-file?

The answer to both lies in the way the list of promotions was phrased: “Pawns on the files a and i become either chancellorrider or zecari pieces”, f.ex., reads as if a pawn reaching either of these files may choose what it promotes to from the list (i.e. it becimes one of those once it is on the file); the lack of mention for the e‐file then suggested that a pawn arriving there is unaffected. And the fact that a and i, b and h, and so on are paired together means that the order of promotions also doesn't serve as a clue to matching them with the three choices of forward direction.

I'd suggest it'd be clearer still if you mentioned the new formulation before the old one, and kept the old one (if at all) as a clarifying list of examples; at the moment it reads like the old phrasing is the main rule (still missing a case for a pawn coming from the e‐file — which is impossible from rank 1 but can happen from rank 7) and the new one is an explanation (which is, due to the omitted case, not necessarily quite equivalent).

For extra clarity “Pawns on the files” might be rephrased to “Pawns coming from the files”

The author, Gerd Degens, has updated this page.