Single Comment

Having analysed this variant thoroughly I have been torn between the
ratings Good and Average. In the end I plumped for Good as it does seem a
good game, but mostly by accident and despite the presentation. Sorry if
this seems faint praise.
	The first thing to notice is that that 'pentagons' are really hexagons
with one corner flattened. Where a cell is surrounded it is by 6, not 5,
others. The board as a whole resolves itself into a hex board of
Glinsky/McCooey orientation, irregular in shape but symmetric about a
midline. The number of cells per file are, from left to right: 1, 6, 7, 8,
7, 8, 7, 2.
	This of course has an impact on the pieces. The Pawn analogue is the same
as Glinsky's. The Elephant analogue is bound to 1 in 3 cells, but the
Knight analogue to still less, 1 in 4, being in fact a Dabbaba. This is
the reverse of the analogy in my own variant Hex Dabbaba Qi! Each player
has a Dabbaba bound to each of the two bindings forming together the files
with even numbers of cells - binding all to identical numbers of cells. Yet
there is no mention of this feature on the page!
	On the whole this is a good version of Chaturanga, but a good hexagonal
rather than pentagonal one. It inspires me to wonder whether I can do one
as good on a more regular-shaped board (a Chaturanga counterpart to HDQ) -
and also to how pieces would move on a board of genuine pentagons.