How about thanking me for the work I put down, instead? I decided to
abandon this forum to avoid being hacked on. Obviously it didn't help. In
fact, I have lately been been using four board types: Gustavian, H-board,
the 80-squared board, and the standard board. The reason why I link 
externally is because I cannot upload any files because of some error. 
Even though I have created many new interesting pieces this is regarded 
as so unimportant so I shouldn't be allowed more than one little external 
link page. It is astoundingly ungenerous! I do not simply add a new piece 
to a board arbitrarely. All my variants have been tested to create the setup
which is the most strategically many-sided. Many setups simply don't work. I 
have also created new graphics. I have introduced these pieces in a regular
piece context so it's easier to get a feel for them, and decide upon the
piece-value of the new piece. All the games have a different character,
and they work very fine. My idea is that the new pieces can later be
inserted in other more unusual contexts, with several different piece
types. Namik Sade has already begun doing this work, in two new games, as
far as I know. By using my programs you can decide whether you like the
piece, and whether it's suitable in your own game construct. 

I have endeavoured to create pieces (I have discarded several) which
function well together with the Western piece set. As their piece-value
seem to rhyme with the traditional pieces, they can be mutually exchanged,
something which greatly increases the combinative, and strategical,
possibilities. I suspect this aspect has received too little attention in
many game constructs. One should not simply add many pieces to a board
without investigating their relations, in terms of value. The game could
become cramped an uninteresting, because the pieces must often avoid each
other, and the combinative and strategical possibilities are thereby
reduced. Those people, like 'none' (a suitable name), who think that my
games are not innovative enough, simply don't understand chess. What
makes a chess variant interesting is what goes on *under* the surface, in
terms of interesting combinations, endgame qualities, and strategical
brainteasers. With these new pieces new forms of combinations are
introduced to the chessboard, which have never occured before in chess
history. Such aspects decide whether a game has original and striking
characteristics, and not whether it appears, on the surface, to be
innovative. If you create a game on a star-shaped board, for instance, and
put many unusual pieces on it, this does not necessarily mean that it's a
genuinely innovative variant.

I am convinced that my variants are good games, but it should be possible
to create even better games by introducing these new pieces in other
contexts. That's for other innovators to ponder over. Moreover, it's
likely that the new methods of movement, the bounce-movement, the
collision-capture, two leg cannon capture, etc., can stimulate yet more
piece-types. In Doublebarrel Chess I introduce practical new rules for 
introducing a pair of extra pieces to the standard board. My contributions 
should stimulate game constructors, and fairy problem composers, while 
people with inferiority complexes ought to shut up.