Sorry, if you can, please change THERE moves of Index and Ox. All other is COOL!

Oh, I see. It is not the same Ox as in Horizons. Perhaps you should remove the reference to Horizons in the article, then, because it is just confusing: nobody can see anymore what the 'original move' of the Ox in Horizons was.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

I have an idea: you can turn Ox’s face to left in Stone Garden, as it was in my drawings, and make it different from Horizons. About Index it’s same. Please.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

OK, I fixed that now.

I flipped the Ox image in Horizons, because it looked too much like the Knight image in the way you had drawn it. I think piece images should be quite different even when looked at in low resolution. If I would flip the Ox here, it would become too similar to Index. Of course I could flip them both. But I don't think it is a problem that the Ox in Horizons and Stone Garden Chess look the same, although they move differently. They are also called the same, and this is actually more confusing than that the image is the same. People would not easily remember in which direction the Ox looked in another game, They might not even know the other game.

Thx, but about moving of previous version of Ox, it’s just historic note.

Thx, but about moving of previous version of Ox, it’s just historic note.

If you want to make historic notes about Horizons, the Horizon article would be the place to do it. Not the article about another Chess variant. People intersted in Horizons might never look here, people interested in Stone Garden Chess might not be interested in Horizons, let alone in its history.

Edited. Can you publish it please?

Well, your images were still insanely large. I edited the article a bit to show them at a size that is more in line with what we have on other pages. For some that meant I had to shrink them by a factor four!

It is still not clear to me how turning of the Raven works. You say once in N moves. But are these moves of the Raven, or moves of the player to which the Raven belongs?

If they were moves of the Raven, I could implement it for the purpose of an Interactive Diagram as (hidden) promotions: there would be a number of different Ravens, one that can turn, another (Raven1) that cannot turn, but automatically promotes to Raven whenever it moves, a Raven2 that promotes to Raven1 on every move, etc. And then when the Raven turns, demote it to the Raven that still has to promote N times.

I am not in favor of publishing this, at least as it is now. Some problems I have with this page:

1. The writing is very bad. English may not be your primary language, and I am willing to fix these things, but I only spend the time if I think the game is worthwhile. To me, this game just looks like a random collection of ideas.

2. A game can have a theme to give it character, but please keep that to the introduction and/or notes. Putting information in each piece description about whether it is a person, or a statue, or was a statue ... this makes a reader think that this information is relevant to the game when it is not (as far as I can tell).

3. The Raven is not well-enough defined and the move is too complicated anyway. Things like "can only do this once in 5 moves unless something else in which case every 3 moves" is much too complicated and basically guarantees the game cannot be played. No program supports this and even players over a board are not likely to remember exactly how many moves it has been since something happened. Pieces that rotate are already rare, and most programs don't support, but they are still usable and can be played. The additional only-every-X-moves restriction is too much and makes the game almost unplayable. (And, is it important? Is rotating a Raven really so powerful that it must be limited?)

Edited. Including some rules (i. e. no restriction to turn the Raven in first 5 moves, I deleted this) So interested people can read and play this offline, not only online.

I deleted turning rule of the Raven

I moved the Interactive Diagram into the article.

It is still not mentioned whether the Horses promote (and where, or to what). Are they just dead wood when they reach the last rank?

I fixed things about horse promotions, but quality of pieces’ images on the submission’s diagram is amazing in the worst sense of it.

I think that’s bug

Thank you. So I missed out one thing.

It was in the rules but wasn’t in the pieces desc. Read about King, you’ll find.

For me the pieces look fine, so perhaps it is a matter of refreshing your browser cache. I used 250 x 250 PNG images, copied from what you uploaded here without scaling but just a bit of padding and culling to make them all of equal size. Ad the Diagram instructs the browser to demagnify that to 50 x 50. (But you can zoom in without loss of resolution.)

I made this game playable with game courier if anyone's interested in trying it.

Thanks, can you publish it please?

Please, this variant is ready to be published.

Good day’s time. What should I do to make this published? Please answer me in next 96 hours.

What should I do to make this published?

You could change your graphics to something more traditional, or you could wait for Ben or Greg to find the time to publish it. When I see your silly nursery school graphics, it shuts down any further interest in your game, and I choose to just ignore it.

That is exactly how I feel when I see an article that uses the Abstract set...

But this is a matter of taste, and therefore I don't think this is valid criticism. None of the pieces in this variant is orthodox, or even commonly used in other Chess variants, so recognizability is not an issue. The images used here are well distinguishable. Better than in some piece sets (such as Galactic). So there doesn't seem to be any objective reason for not using these pieces.

I like the Abstract set, I used it when I played Gross Chess in ChessV. It is still better than those Wikipedia pieces which are now everywhere.

I don't mind these graphics, too, because they indeed represent new pieces, and look fun, but their style is not in common sense for me.

Well, that shows there is no accounting for tastes.

Anyway, I tried to shape up the English a bit (mainly w.r.t. the use of articles and gender). I did not want to change the piece names, but I do feel that where it says 'Index' it really means 'Arrow'. The piece IDs mentioned in parentheses behind the piece names do not correspond to those used in the Diagram, and it seems unnecessary and undesirable to use non-ascii characters for those. Let alone a + sign...

So I can delete piece articles in parentheses as well as bare piece graphics (not moving diagrams).

Middle arithmetic of mentions said above)