Enter Your Reply

Http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=5123, above Lavieri, or Black, or Nelson, but not all Ultima reworkers have noticed inventor's of Ultima in 1960s, Robert Abbott, comment. 

Other CVs revolve around the idea of just mostly Knight moves, like 1920s'
Cavalry, http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/cavalry-chess.html. The CV of this thread is ''-ima'' for being like Ultima too, reminding of Black's blend Ulchesgi and Fourriere's Chessma 84, with name part of Ultima. The preset, linked in the 3rd of these 4 comments, must be including border squares to work like Rococo's.  Border squares are great there, but raise questions of access in and out of that take care in describing the rules. 
Probably Frolov's Knightima here has similar problem of clarity that same
Rococo-inventor Aronson's Jumping Chess has,
http://www.chessvariants.org/crossover.dir/jumpingchess.html. In both is required factor to visualize Knight's path, whether he is orthogonal then diagonal, or diagonal then orthogonal, or at times Nightrider-like, or something else.  In Jumping Chess it is surprising that any time the capture by Knight is optional.  In Knightima it is not at first obvious whether custodian capture is ever supposed to be only radial, the regular definition. Knight-moving Withdrawer of Knightima must give two choices to take, if disposition forces and vacancies is right -- like the example of Knight-leaping capture of Jumping Chess does give two choices, if two intervene, out of which player may pick only one.