When I programmed Aberg's Capablanca Variation for Zillions in 1999, I understood that he put the Chancellor on the Queen's side and the Archbishop on the King's side, whereas my variant switched these two pieces around from Aberg's. Yet the page for Aberg's made in 2003 uses the setup for Duniho's Capablanca Variation. So I went to archive.org to see what information I was using on Aberg's back in 1999. Here is what Aberg wrote: 'I think that one should perhaps put the piece that can move both as a rook and a knight on the queen's side. The reason is that this piece will be weaker than the one that moves as a rook and a bishop, and the queen's side already has more material than the king's side. One might still call the queen's side piece the archbishop and the king's side piece the chancellor, though.' Aberg switched the meanings of Chancellor and Archbishop, and the diagram that follows uses these switched piece names. In the 2003 page, Aberg has switched the pieces around, so that his setup now matches the one from Duniho's Capablanca Variation, and he now states, in agreement with the reason I switched the position of the pieces for my variant, that the Chancellor is more powerful than the Archbishop.
Regarding the name of the game, I would favor using Carrera's name instead of Capablanca's, because the setup is mathematically equivalent (or even identical) to the one from his game, and he preceded Capablanca by centuries. It is the reverse of Carrera's setup if we take our own page on Carrera's Chess as the authority, but another page I've seen (http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi01.html) shows Carrera's setup to be the same as it is for what you're calling Balanced Capablanca Chess. So I suggest using the name Modern Carrera's Chess, since it is Carrera's setup played with Capablanca's more modern rules.
Sam Trenholme wrote:
When I programmed Aberg's Capablanca Variation for Zillions in 1999, I understood that he put the Chancellor on the Queen's side and the Archbishop on the King's side, whereas my variant switched these two pieces around from Aberg's. Yet the page for Aberg's made in 2003 uses the setup for Duniho's Capablanca Variation. So I went to archive.org to see what information I was using on Aberg's back in 1999. Here is what Aberg wrote: 'I think that one should perhaps put the piece that can move both as a rook and a knight on the queen's side. The reason is that this piece will be weaker than the one that moves as a rook and a bishop, and the queen's side already has more material than the king's side. One might still call the queen's side piece the archbishop and the king's side piece the chancellor, though.' Aberg switched the meanings of Chancellor and Archbishop, and the diagram that follows uses these switched piece names. In the 2003 page, Aberg has switched the pieces around, so that his setup now matches the one from Duniho's Capablanca Variation, and he now states, in agreement with the reason I switched the position of the pieces for my variant, that the Chancellor is more powerful than the Archbishop.
Regarding the name of the game, I would favor using Carrera's name instead of Capablanca's, because the setup is mathematically equivalent (or even identical) to the one from his game, and he preceded Capablanca by centuries. It is the reverse of Carrera's setup if we take our own page on Carrera's Chess as the authority, but another page I've seen (http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi01.html) shows Carrera's setup to be the same as it is for what you're calling Balanced Capablanca Chess. So I suggest using the name Modern Carrera's Chess, since it is Carrera's setup played with Capablanca's more modern rules.