Single Comment

George, I made no changes to the game whatsoever with this last minor correction, so I felt no need to make a date note. I did change the version number [top right corner of doc] from 3.03 to 3.04, though. And anybody that wants to can get a feel for what I did from the comments; I doubt anyone would be that interested. Good, crisp, simple, understandable rules are what count, in my opinion. The game itself, the intent of the rules, the moves of the pieces, they have not changed at all. 

I looked at LLSmith's Jetan rules, and checked all the piece diagrams. Actually, I am surprised that my pieces are not identical with some of ERB's, as interpreted [quite well, indeed!] by Larry. But I was lucky, and missed re-inventing Jetan, or at least some pieces from it. You seem to say I should say my game is 'like' Jetan in some manner, and acknowledge Jetan's priority. But these games I have made are outgrowths of shatranj, including chieftain chess. And I acknowledge that, usually starting in the title. That you see a similarity to Jetan I consider quite a compliment. Thank you. But I feel it would be vain to say 'this game is like Jetan' in the body of the rules, as it's a compliment, rather than a fact.

My pieces were built by combining dabbabah and wazir or alfil and ferz, in a number of different ways, systematically. ERB's pieces were not. He made 2 and 3 square pieces, like chieftain uses, but he built his pieces from a different starting point than I built mine, and that is why they are different. He built more from the top down, to get twisty, flexible 2 and 3 square pieces that were novel in that they were often constrained to move a specified number of squares in a turn rather than [or in addition to] a specified geometric path. FIDE pieces [with the exception of the knight], and mine, are path dependent pieces, having a pattern rather than a range they must adhere to. Finally, my pieces were built from the bottom up. The difference in styles is there to be seen. Hope I didn't get a misspoken word in here. But I think this analysis is fairly conclusive.