Comments by JaredMcComb

I think that whatever system we choose to use in the near future, we'll
just need more editors to run it.  Also, I think the wiki idea wouldn't be
that great.  If you want a CV Wiki, enter some pages into the Wikipedia.

I'd volunteer to be an editor, myself, if I knew enough HTML to be useful.

It seems to me that no comments from the 10 Contest page are showing up in
the main listing.  There are quite a few confused people there waiting for
things to happen.  On that note, perhaps a priority ought to be made to
update the contest, especially since the deadline is not very far away.

Or you could use rooks to represent knights, and knights to represent
rooks, and turn one rook upside-down.  Or one knight could be tipped on
its side.  The possibilities are vaguely endless.

In all seriousness, this game does sound interesting, if minimal in
overall variantage.  Whatever happened to the modest variants listing? 
There have been quite a few variants posted lately that could probably go
there.  Maybe it's time for an overhaul of said listing.

I am going to offer my interpretation/variant of the rules here.  This is
assuming each player has their own distinct set of quantae, which is how
it looks the game is played from the opening setup on this page.

A piece is not defined until it is moved, regardless of whether it can be
deduced as something or not.  In other words, the cycle is not complete
until every quantum on the board has moved and been defined.  When you
move a piece as a rook or bishop, you may choose to define it as a queen,
but you must define it as such immediately after moving it.  Once a piece
of yours has been captured, it's captured, and you can no longer define a
quantum to be that particular piece (of course, if you had two of them, and
one was captured, you can still use the other one).  If a quantum is
captured, we don't know what it was going to be, so after every piece of
yours has been defined, all the other ones that are still left are
considered captured and given to your opponent.  Of course, immediately
after the last quantum has moved, the cycle ends and each quantum suddenly
has the moving power of all the pieces you have left.

In other words, I'm for Full Actual resets, but I don't understand fully
the difference between Field and Player, so I can't say which I have just
stated I prefer.

The reason I like this method of play is that it more closely resembles
FIDE chess because once a piece is captured, it's removed from play, so
for example you can't redefine another quantum to be your Queen if
you've already lost your Queen.

Just my 2 cents.

The rating is for the new layout of the page.

One thing I find annoying about it, though, is the way the page instantly
jumps to a certain spot whenever you click on anything.  In my opinion, it
would be easier to navigate if it just sat where it was.

I do find it enjoyable, myself.  Of course, having played two games with
its inventor may have helped...

I didn't say your interpretation was wrong.  I was trying to imply that
the n in funny notation does not really make sense when we apply it to
hippogonal pieces (such as the knight, camel, zebra, etc.) since it does
not intrinsically imply the unblocked path a piece must take.

By 'move' in my previous comment, I meant 'the device by which a single
piece may end the turn on a square different from the one it started on.'

I have a copy of Gollon's book.  I can check this out later today.

EDIT: Checked it.  The book I'm using is Gollon's Chess Variants Ancient,
Regional, and Modern, first edition.  According to this book, the starting
position and stalemate rules are correct.

However, the promotion rule listed here is inaccurate.  First of all,
pawns do not promote to the piece which started on the promotion space,
but to the 'master piece' of that file.  In other words, the piece of
yours that started in that file is the one that determines promotion, not
the one of the opposing army.  This only has ramifications in the central
two files.

Gollon's rules also require the actual piece that started in the file to
which the pawn will be moving to have been lost, not just a piece of the
type.  (The example given is that a pawn cannot promote in the C file
until his elephant which started in the C file has been lost.)
Additionally, according to Gollon, a pawn may not even move to the last
rank unless it is able to promote, which is not stated here.

Fergus, I won't claim to be an artist, and in truth I haven't even looked
at the pieces you're talking about up close, but it sounds to me like
those white edges would be due to antialiasing against a white background
that they were created on.  Couldn't you edit them out pixel by pixel? 
Admittedly that would be time consuming, but it would look much nicer.

Just my two cents.