Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I copied and pasted from a settings file - would save time doing it that way again.

if this works maybe Fergus or another editor can tell me if It's allowed in a 'Pieces' section of a Rules Page

Why wouldn't it be allowed?

if they can read my comment here from the original state I had it in before submitting it

Earlier versions of comments are not saved as revisions, but we can look at the source code of your comment if that is what you mean. The main change I would recommend is to use relative URLs.

Testing - if this works maybe Fergus or another editor can tell me if It's allowed in a 'Pieces' section of a Rules Page, possibly in future, if they can read my comment here from the original state I had it in before submitting it:

Amazon — Can move like a Queen or Knight.

Ship — Can move like a Rook, Knight, or Ferz. Also known as Heroine.

Freemason — Can move like a Bishop, Knight, or Wazir. Also known as Templar or Popess.

Chancellor — Can move like a Rook or Knight. Also commonly called Marshall.

Archbishop — Can move like a Bishop or Knight. Also commonly called Cardinal.

Sailor — Can move like a Rook or step one square diagonally like a Ferz. Known in Shogi as Dragon King.

Missionary — Can move like a Bishop or step one square orthogonally like a Wazir. Known in Shogi as Dragon Horse.

Judge — Can step one square in any direction like a non-royal King or leap like a Knight. More commonly known as Centaur.

@ Daniel

I still find this 24x8 invention idea (essentially yours, the setup of which I modified and called Bureau-Spiel) looking plausible, so I finally made a preset and sent you a personal invitation to play-test it, if you still are interested.

Kevin

As of today I've made preliminary Settings Files for my backlog of 28 CV ideas - they can already serve as (unofficial) presets for anyone who visits my CVP Personal Information Page, to look up the link for my Settings Files (then they are free straight away to explore the whole list of mine).

Here's a list of the names of the (28) CV ideas, to give possible insight:

24x8: (1) Bureau-Spiel

20x8: (1) Hurly-Burly Chess

16x8: (3) Officer-Spiel; Constable-Spiel; Accelerated Constable-Spiel

14x8: (1) Wide-Spiel

12x12: (1) Brawl Chess

12x8: (10) Accelerated Courier-Spiel; Capa-Spiel; Centaur-Spiel; Janus-Spiel; Hurly-Burly-Spiel; Lancer-Spiel; Horse-Wazir-Spiel; Kirin-Spiel; Warmachinewazir-Spiel; Waffle-Spiel

10x10: (2) Grandiose Chess; Hybrid Decimal Chess

10x8: (6) Centaur Princess Chess; Fibnif Lancers Chess; Horse-Wazir Chess; Kirin Chess; Hybrid Chess; Warmachinewazir Chess

8x10: (3) Officer Chess; Constabulary Chess; Accelerated Constabulary Chess.

Here's a direct link to my Settings Files:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/settings.php?author=panther

Below is a diagram of my first attempt to improve the setup of what I called (24x8) Bureau-Spiel; Fast Castling rules like used for my already published Wide Chess CV, and FIDE pawn rules - we can study it at our leisure:

I hadn't actually thought of an exact re-arrangement of the back ranks to my liking, but at least the way some of the diagonal-capable pieces of each army were pointing may not have been ideal possibly (don't know what new setup to suggest/try for sure yet, unless I think of some things that are specific).

I recall your caption for the diagram said 'Just for fun', but in the past I've dreamt up some pretty wide CV invention ideas with 8 ranks myself.

If you come up with a setup that's satisfactory I'd be interested in playing it.

@ Daniel.

The image I just gave is the same as your suggestion a month ago in this thread - I tried to quote it but somehow only got the diagram part.

I hadn't actually thought of an exact re-arrangement of the back ranks to my liking, but at least the way some of the diagonal-capable pieces of each army were pointing may not have been ideal possibly (don't know what new setup to suggest/try for sure yet, unless I think of some things that are specific).

I recall your caption for the diagram said 'Just for fun', but in the past I've dreamt up some pretty wide CV invention ideas with 8 ranks myself.

edit: @ Myself (or anyone curious): A list of the dates and places on CVP site that I've left key comments/diagrams about (28) CV invention ideas of mine, that I might make preset(s) for at some point if I stop rejecting all the CV ideas:

To the 'Diagram Testing Thread': 2023-03-06, 2023-02-01, 2023-01-31, 2023-01-17, 2020-12-31,2020-12-16, 2020-12-15, 2019-02-16

To the 'Parity Chess' preset page: 2018-11-30

To the 'Frog Chess' rules page: 2017-11-25

To the 'Courier-Spiel' rules page: 2019-09-29

Finally, to the 'Amazon Grand Chess' rules page: 2019-12-14

edit2: 2023-12-29: I now have (28) preliminary Settings Files made for all these CV ideas, which can act as presets, especially for members able to recognize fairly common fairy piece figurines, as used on CVP site's Game Courier. One way these Settings Files of mine can be found is on my Personal Information page on CVP (just explore the list, for ones that seem interesting).

I don't see a difference. Is that the right image?

Hi Daniel. I think I'd call this 'Bureau-Spiel, but rearrange the back ranks a bit in the setup.

Just for fun

Bah, I was (sadly) fearing to get such an answer. I take your last sentence straight in my face, thank you. Are you especially angry today?

Not angry at all. But if you suspected this answer could come, there must be some truth in it, right? And don't get me wrong, Shako and Pemba are great games. I count them in the top 10%-tier of all chess variants, because of the good spectrum of piece values and interesting pieces. But that doesn't mean one should make infinite numbers of variations on them, using the same set of pieces over and over again, with minimal variation. Especially since there are already many other variants that use Elephant, Cannon and Vao. At some point that gets boring, and a clone of a great original is still just a clone.

You expressed an opinion. H.G. expressed a different opinion, complete with the logic behind it. I don't see anything objectionable here, except possibly the last sentence, and even there I think you are being too sensitive.

You often express strong opinions - sometimes quite forcefully, especially regarding the names of pieces. You also sometimes respond poorly to alternate opinions.

@Kevin: no, not yours.

Hi J-L: If you mean my answer, no, not angry at all - though I did just get up from a nap and may not yet be as tactful as I should be.

Bah, I was (sadly) fearing to get such an answer. I take your last sentence straight in my face, thank you. Are you especially angry today?

With 16x8 Officer-Spiel (or 8x10 Officer Chess), I used every traditional compound piece (but only once per army) plus the other 8 pieces from FIDE chess, much as e.g. 12x10 Very Heavy Chess uses them.

While my first instinct is to reject Officer-Spiel as having too many powerful pieces (I've since added an alternative setup I prefer, with an edit to that post), maybe I'm being too fussy. That's since 14x8 Alekhine Chess uses quite similar great piece power, without even the ability for a player to castle quickly - yet that CV proved popular as far as I know, at least initially (pandering mainly to many lower rated players, perhaps - though you do what you've got to do ;)).

With 16x8 Constable-Spiel (or 8x10 Constabulary Chess), it was a similar story - I used 2 of each of 4 piece types (that are the logical compounds of A,D,F and W, in ways that make them all approximately worth a Kt; they also each only move within a radius of 2 cells). Then I combined those 8 pieces with the 8 pieces of the FIDE chess army. I liked sticking to the theme, and still don't much mind the FA type at all (much as I don't dismiss Amazons automatically as invention idea setup choices - another thing each variantist has his own personal preference about, it seems).

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/very-heavy-chess

Capablanca Chess and Carrera Chess have BN and RN singletons in the wings. For a board this wide I think it can even be nice to spread out the 'power-pieces' a bit. I don't have any clear preference myself; I just put RF and BW where I did because that was where Kevin had put the Elephants that I replaced. But I don't see why this would beg for 'improvement'. If symmetry would be the holy grail, I would sooner take two BW in the wings than move singleton BW and RF to the center. (BW on 16x8 could be significantly stronger than Rook anyway, because it will in general attack the opponent in two places, rather than one.)

One point to consider is that there are already so many variants using Elephants, Cannons, and Vaos (to not even mention Archbishops and Chancellors). I experience it as very refreshing to also see some other pieces now and then. The WA, FD, BW and RF are only rarely encountered, outside shogi variants.

And as to 'unnatural moves': if a chessplayer would consider anything unnatural, it will be the Cannon and the Vao. The presence of those divergent hoppers really upsets everything you thought to know about tactics. And I don't think the FD is unnatural at all: it is just the conjugate of a King (i.e. the 45-degree rotated version moving on the sub-grid of one shade). And King moves are very natural. The WA is indeed a different matter; you will have to learn how to manouevre with it, just like novice chess players have to learn to manouevre with a Knight. But that seems a small matter compared to mastering the use of Cannons and such.

I don't see much fun in reducing every chess variant to a version of Shako or Pemba on a differently shaped board.

If I may join and play with you on this interesting discussion, to my taste:

• I agree with HG that it was too much strong pieces in the array (Amazon, RFN, BWN).

• I don't like too much compound pieces like FD and WA, nice pattern but not natural (yes, this is subjective, but I feel it like this). I do prefer much FA (Elephant) and WD (War Machine) because I see a consistency in their move.

• I don't like that singleton pieces (here Crowned R and Crowned B) are on sides where as some duo pieces are more in the center (on f,g,j,k). (Another subjective opinion).

• I would suggest to use a pair of FA, a pair of WD. 4 spaces would remain. Have you considered to use a pair of Cannons and a pair of Vao? (Instead of the 2xFD, 1 RK, 1 BK).

Ah yes, sorry. That is what I meant. I now corrected that.

Of course one can argue that the WD is similar to a Rook in the same way the FA is similar to the Bishop, but in the WD case there is a quite large value difference. And the WD is a very interesting piece in itself because of the combination of low value and mating potential.

"And you already have the WD, which is also color bound"

You probably meant the FD, not the WD.

Thanks for the effort, H.G.! I'm glad Fast Castling is now supported by the I.D. (though I as a dinosaur personally have a ways to go before ever learning how to use that, especially authoring/inventing something with it).

Your modification to Constable-Spiel is interesting, and may deserve a name of its own (would we be co-inventors, if it takes root?! edit: possible name: 'Accelerated Constable-Spiel'), even if I still prefer to keep the original around under the Constable-Spiel name.

I have 22 CV invention ideas (that I at the least haven't totally rejected yet), on scrap paper and scattered in comments on this CVP site since 2019 - a start would be for me to make settings files files for them at my leisure, before thinking about the long daunting process of submitting the ideas (Fergus once capped the number of submissions at a time by a member at 9 maximum; I have 9 published presets that also might use rules pages some day). With settings files done, people could locate the ideas a bit more easily, and also play them if they wish.

For my taste the pieces in Officer Spiel are way too strong, while those in Constable Spiel (although I like that more) are a bit on the weak side. If you would replace the Elephants by a Crowned Rook and a Crowned Bishop you would have an interpolation of the two that has pretty much an ideal piece mix; it would add one rook-class piece, and one halfway Rook and Queen, next to three pairs of light pieces (of which the War Machine has mating power).

I suggest to replace the Elephant, because it seems the 'most redundant piece': its footprint is a subset of that of the Bishop, and although it can jump, you already have the WA that has that move. And you already have the WD, which is also color bound.

P.S. The Diagram now also supports 'fast castling'. (Flush browser cache!) The XBetza notation ispOn. It seemed fitting to use the p modifier to distinguish it from normal castling, as it is a castling that can hop over other pieces. For now the n is ignored; perhaps this can be interpreted as the maximum range over which the King is allowed to jump.

Below is a diagram for a (16x8) CV invention idea of mine, which might be called Officer-Spiel, that I can study at my leisure (Fast Castling rules like in Wide Chess, and FIDE pawn rules). It was inspired by my much earlier (8x10) CV invention idea Officer Chess (see 2019-02-16 post[s] in this thread), as well as by Michael Wortley Nolan's (14x8) Alekhine Chess (I thought, if that 8-rank CV with all its piece power, and no quick way to castle, has some popularity, maybe Officer-Spiel shouldn't be ruled out):

https://www.chessvariants.com/link/zAlekhineChess

edit: Alternative setup for Officer-Spiel (currently prefer):

Here's a diagram for a (16x8) CV invention idea of mine, which might be called Constable-Spiel, that I can study at my leisure (Fast Castling rules as in Wide Chess, and FIDE pawn rules) - it was inspired by my earlier (8x10) CV invention idea Constablulary Chess (see 2020-12-16 post[s] in this thread):

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/wide-chess

I hadn't looked at Betza notation much so far, but didn't realize he used K=FW; I thought he'd might have cared if a piece were royal (in which case if he didn't want to use FW for Man, he might have picked another letter[s] than K - the Alfairie: Many set in the Diagram Designer, for example, uses {GU} for guard when one is putting it in its FEN notation, though that's 4 characters[!]).

The KAD goes back at least as far as the Pasha of Paulovits' game, and also appears as a Mastodon in Mats Winter's games and as Joe Joyce's Jumping General (How's that for alliteration?(!) )

I guess a FADW could be seen as a more appropriate analogue to an almost clearly weaker version of a Q, in the spirit of calling a FA an almost clearly weaker version of a B (at least in many endgames).

I wonder if a FADW would make for an interesting piece in some CV invention(s), whether or not the piece has been used by someone already. edit: Joe Joyce has used it, I recall now:

Considering the WA a weak version of the Q is a stretch of the imagination. The value difference alone makes it a completely different piece, in the way you have to use it. On 8x8 the opening value of the FA is hardly different from that of a Bishop. On larger board the Bishop gains value, but the FA stays similar in value to a Knight. As the WA would. Each of those is, after all, an 8-target leaper.

The FA is one of my favourite fairy pieces, even though it seems usually much weaker than a B in an endgame with not many pawns (even then, it might somehow usefully leap to the other side of its K if adjacent to it). It's too bad there is not a Piececlopedia entry for it, but maybe understandable since at the least the origins (or favoured name(s)) of the piece are unknown or unclear (is Courier-Spiel the first instance of it being used? if so, we don't know who invented that CV).

The WA does come from Japanese origins, it seems, though maybe one could try to argue that it is almost just a clearly weaker version of a Q and doesn't add much to a CV where Qs are present in the setup (analogous to the way FA and B are sometimes compared).

For my part, I like the FA. I am sensitive to the consistency of a piece. The FA is a pure diagonal piece. It is different enough from the Bishop, especially in the center of the board where it may leap to threaten enemy pieces. A nice pattern is not necessarily a nice piece to play with, this is why I prefer it to WA or Omega's WAD. Of course this matter is highly subjective.

Hi H.G.:

These 2 latest CV ideas here are ones I thought of back some years ago, when I was keen to keep the FA pieces as part of the CVs (and some others), as they were part of the Courier-Spiel tradition. They also are handy when trying to keep all pawns guarded in the setup (a principle at least Fergus and I like to follow, even though the other 'Classics' than chess [Chinese Chess and Shogi] break it big-time, in ways extensive playtesting seems to justify however - Janus Chess is a well-tested modern CV that breaks it too).

Even much earlier you suggested the Phoenix (aka Waffle) to me, and I did use it at the least in my long-ago submitted 10x8 Waffle Chess preset, but I found keeping every pawn guarded was awkward enough that I used my Fast Castling rules even for that, though I didn't like doing so for a 10x8 CV (however enemy forces it seemed to me could make a more normal type of castling [e.g. Capablanca Chess style] problematical). Maybe I used Phoenix' in my old 12x8 Wide Chess CV too - I'd need to check. [edit: indeed I did. Note that someone took the name of Phoenix Chess before I could use it.]:

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/wide-chess

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/waffle-chess

https://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/courierspiel.html

It is good that you also include extra light pieces. But why use the Elephant-Ferz? It is so similar to a Bishop that it adds very little to the game. So why not use the Elephant-Wazir (aka Phoenix) instead? That is a very interesting piece, but you hardly ever see it in western chess variants.

Here's a diagram for a 14x8 CV invention idea of mine that might be called 'Wide-Spiel' (crosses the armies of Courier-Spiel and Capablanca Chess); I can study this at my leisure (Fast Castling rules, like in Wide Chess; FIDE pawn rules) [edit: I now don't like this CV idea much - guards are weak/slow pieces here and 14x8 seems a bit wide, too. edit2: maybe a bit too harsh on this idea.]:

Here's a diagram for a 12x8 CV invention idea of mine, which might be called 'Janus-Spiel', and which I can study at my leisure (Fast Castling rules, like in Wide Chess; FIDE pawn rules) [edit: I now don't like this CV idea much; elephants seem awkward in the setup and Archbishops might prove too active {or the opposite, if one is left at home beside a castled K}. edit2: maybe a bit too harsh on this idea.]:

Note that replacing an Archbishop on each player's Q-side with a Chancellor in the setup gets to an earlier CV invention idea of mine ('Capa-Spiel').

In fact, Charles Gilman has used the name Heroine before for some piece on a hex-prism board (3 dimensional with stacked planes of hexagons). I don't whether it was featured in a game and Gilman's games tend to be deployments of the pieces in many cases.

Sure, all compound pieces have probably been conceived or imagined long time ago. J.Knappen's Teutonic Knight's Chess used both triple compounds we are talking about. He called them Crown Princess and Archchancellor, names I don't like very much. About the names, yes, there is a Templar in Templar chess moving as Dabbaba or B2. For the BNW, or BKN, I was thinking to ... BiKiNi. Smile.

I tried (in the quoted 12x12 diagram of my last post in this thread) to have the diagonal-content pieces not diagonally hitting (i.e. even by X-ray) anything of equal or greater value in the enemy camp in the setup - I also did not want two diagonal-content pieces doubled on a diagonal that would lead to anything in the enemy camp, even an enemy pawn. Looking back, I don't think it's possible to satisfy all my wishes, e.g. for rook-content AND diagonal-content pieces, in a setup if the board is only 12x10. However, 12x12 has the possible drawback that it may take a while in a game for the two armies to come into significant contact with one another. The Knights and Judges (Centaurs) in particular will get off to a slow start (true no matter where they may have been placed in a 12x12 setup with all pawns on third ranks).

On my Chess Federation of Canada Discussion Board blog entry that covers Sac Chess, I mentioned the ideas of NBW and NRF pieces sometime before 2019, but I'm sure both were conceived of long before that. I called the former a 'Freemason'(F) and the latter a 'Ship'(H) [with RF being what I called a Sailor, in Sac Chess].

I think I've since encountered two or more different piece types that someone called a Freemason, and a Ship in another case, on this present chessvariants.com website (even Missionary was used for something else). It's very hard to come up with a name that someone hasn't used already for a piece type. There is a variant called Templar Chess on this site where a different piece type is called a Templar, for example. I haven't yet checked too hard to see if anyone has used 'Heroine' already.

While exploring the same concept (see Very Heavy Chess), apart from the difference Queen vs Amazon, I have been testing the relative position of BKN and RKN with Zillions. My first idea was also to have BKN on the 2nd row, like in your variant, but then I had the feeling that it is very difficult to develop the RKN. Then, I changed and put the RKN on the 2nd row and the BKN on back row.

Maybe it is because in VH Chess, RKN and BKN are set at the extreme wings, a/l, and not in a more centred position d/i like here.

Here's another version of my (10x8) Officer Chess variant idea, which I may have rejected too fast - I'll study it at my leisure. It might be called (12x12) 'Brawl Chess', and again is a kind of extention of my popular (10x10) Sac Chess variant. Castling would be done on a player's second rank with either unmoved rook, with the unmoved king going 3 squares sideways. Pawns would move as in Omega Chess, i.e. initial double or triple step allowed (as are en passant capture possibilities). Pawns would promote on the last rank, to any piece type in the setup (except for king):

Just testing whether I can include, with a quote, a diagram (an old one I made).

Testing Again

I'm thinking of doing this setup so the non royal major piece is like guarding the royal ones but I just realized the b and i pawns are unprotected I was thinking of switching the Man and Unicorn in this setup but I don't know yet

EDIT: I think I'm doing this setup instead even though it looks weird to me

Yes, all 4 are interesting diagrams. While the N-like pieces you've added can't all be developed in one move to attack on the opponent's side of the centre (as was my theme), you've gone instead for the theme of balancing the augmented knights in terms of one type gaining an orthogonal power, and the other gaining a diagonal power.

I'd also worried that I had no true minor pieces in my setups (for the CV ideas of Hybrid Chess and Hybrid Decimal Chess), but I comforted myself with the thought that on infrequent occasions I could see 3 pawns being at least a match for one of the augmented Ns, or of the BDs. Personally I prefer a nice straight 2 (or greater) rows of pieces or pawns in a CV's setup, but the classic Unicorn Chess is one example of a fine-enough exception to my preference in this regard. So, I can see your thinking in adding in super-Alpaca-style pieces that are truly minor ones in terms of their value (as you've calculated it).

@Kevin, Have you seen the last comments I have made to this topic?

this is just for 16Chess with Updated Rules

I have made the above mentioned playable in ChessV to check if to much firepower does not make the game blend. The amound of firepower does not seem to me a problem in the games I watched with ChessV playing itself. But I got another worry. There are four pieces in both games that are around 5 pawns of strength (slightly weaker that the rook) and nothing in between. So I had chosen to invent the super alpaca that in betza is written WmDmF. The super alpaca worths around 2.5 pawns. First I had tried with 4 super alpacas each side but the games became to clogged. So I than chose a more conservative 2 super alpacas game. In the end I came up with the following which I consider an improvement over the original two games.

As I was saying earlier I got inspired by your idea and I thought further about it. I wanted to have one orthogonal and one diagonal knight enhancement so I came up with these:

In the HTML format for the comment click source 

Thanks. After quoting you, I went back to Markdown format. Let's see if it works.

As another aside, after all these years, I also have not figured out how to merely quote parts of people's posts with the help of CVP's 'system'.

In the HTML format for the comment click source then choose the quote sign near the styles submenu.

I've edited my last post in this thread a bit, in case anyone missed it.

I'll look forward to seeing those ideas of yours, Aurelian. Regarding my earlier CV idea 'Hybrid Decimal Chess', I'd note that I've since discovered the N-(3,3) compound pieces come somewhat close to making the setup fail based on concrete moves White can make, as the (3,3) power almost busts the setup from Black's point of view (maybe it sort of does, if I'm underestimating that piece type a bit, still).

I don't know if it's the quickest or best thing to do, but I still don't cut and paste from the Diagram Designer straight into a thread post like this one. Instead, I make a post first, then go back and next use an edit to that post to make the cut and paste (that's what I found helpful to do, before any recent changes to CVP website's 'Comments system' might have made it no longer best to do so - otherwise I found myself needing to edit what came from cutting and pasting, in order to make the diagram be displayed, if I did the cutting and pasting within my immediate version of the post).

As another aside, after all these years, I also have not figured out how to merely quote parts of people's posts with the help of CVP's 'system'.

You're welcome. Thank you for your cooperation to help keep the server from getting more cluttered!

Ok, I shall do that tomorrow morning. I wanted to use print screen images from chessV, to spare the work. The diagram designed is no trouble though. Thanks Greg!

Maybe only editors see that. You can to go a game page of your and select 'Upload or Manage Files' from the black box towards the bottom. But that will associate the graphics with the game in question.

But if you are trying to show board diagrams, you should not upload anything. Use the Diagram Designer which will give you a link which generates the picture dynamically so no extra files are stored on the server. This is what Kevin has done for his diagrams. Since this converstion topic is not associated with any page, any files it references will be stored in some arbitrary location and will take up server space forever and we won't even know what they are used for.

I see: Play,Games,Explore,Shop,Web,Help and my name (the login menu). No eidt. Should I upgrade something?

The menu on the top of the page. Play, Games, Explore ... Edit

I do not understand which edit menu!

What you were trying to do was not only not working but was wrecking the formatting of the page so I deleted two of your comments.

What you were doing was trying to place the entire binary data of the image itself directly into the comments. The comments are stored in a database and have a maximum length, which you were exceeding, so the data was being cut off. But this approach is a bad idea anyway.

To post images, you either need to post a link to the image (stored in a separate file) or else use dynamically generated images (such as from the Diagram Designer.) Under the Edit menu, you will see the option to upload files.

It seems I can't add pictures. Can anyone help?

Hi Kevin. I also got inspired by your latest contribution to this thread. I had build two variants in chessV. The zebra picture stands for knight+dabbabah.

Okay Fergus, I've gone back and fixed the appropriate posts with edits. Thanks.

edit: I've added in the following CV idea of mine, for further study; I may call it Constabulary Chess. Castling is as in FIDE Chess, promotion is to any piece type in the setup, except for K. Analogues to Fool's and Scholar's Mates are possible:

edit2: Another possible CV invention idea is to substitute RFs for the FAs on the c-file AND substitute BWs for the FAs on the f-file in diagram below - could be called 'Accelerated Constabulary Chess'.

Castling would be Free Castling (like in Gross Chess), where an unmoved K can move 2, 3 or possibly 4 steps towards an unmoved R, with said R ending up on the square adjacent to the K on the other side of it, on the first rank.

This is called flexible castling. Free castling, which is not used in Gross Chess, gives you more options for where to place the Rook.

@ Aurelian: Your reply inspired me, so I came up with a 10x10 CV idea that uses 4 of the 6 types of N-like compounds that you mentioned. The idea is a bit heavy on the use of N-like pieces, but it may be modified later if ever submitted. I could't find anything for the N-Tripper(3,3 diagonal leaper), so I've used a Pegasus figurine instead. The N-like pieces and BD all seem (to me) relatively close in value on 10x10. The Qs are still FIDE Qs. Promotion is to any piece type in the setup except K. Castling would be Flexible Castling (like in Gross Chess), where an unmoved K can move 2, 3 or possibly 4 steps towards an unmoved R, with said R ending up on the square adjacent to the K on the other side of it, on the second rank. I'm thinking I may call the idea 'Hybrid Decimal Chess', if it seems feasible still after more study. [edit: this time H.G.'s mating app suggests a ND mates in under 50, a NA mates in under 65, and a N-Threeleaper (or N-Tripper) assisted by the K cannot mate a lone K.]

A nice idea. For this I think there are 3 knight candidates: the NA, the ND and the NH (especially if you allow a 10 ranks depth to the board). The 3 diagonal jump does not work as it is already reachable 2 knight moves. Of course the slower NW and NF have a role to play out also. Good luck with these.

Here's a diagram of an idea for a CV of mine that I'll look at at leisure. It's a result of trying to come up with knight-like pieces that might work better on 10x8 (or bigger) than plain knights, by protecting a castled K and/or influencing the opponent's half of the centre, yet hopefully not being way too powerful. The Knight-Alfil compound piece is represented by the elephant+knight figurine. I also used Knight-Ferz compound pieces, to have all pawns in the setup guarded. It seems possible for just one of either type of augmented knight to mate a lone K, though I don't yet know if mates are forcible, in under 50 moves, both cases [edit: H.G.'s mating app seems to suggest so, with the NF being much faster at doing so than the NA]. In addition, I used B-D compound pieces, so that all 3 mentioned types would be close in value (I think) on 10x8; it's not inconceivable that on infrequent occasions, 3 pawns might prove an exceptional match for just one piece, of these 3 piece types. The Qs are still FIDE Qs. Promotion is to any piece type in the setup except K. Castling would be Flexible Castling (like in Gross Chess), where an unmoved K can move 2, 3 or possibly 4 steps towards an unmoved R, with said R ending up on the square adjacent to the K on the other side of it, on the first rank. I'm thinking I may call the idea 'Hybrid Chess', if it seems feasible still after more study.

Okay. I wasn't completely sure if it qualified to everyone as a seperate variant (like Reverso Chess is given on CVP as a seperate CV from chess, in spite of being just reverse symmetric [oddly, with the White K and Q switching]). I'll be glad if there's ever a rules-enforcing preset for it and/or your spin-off asymmetric sub-variant. At least the ideas are there. At the moment my laptop is driving me slightly crazy, so just as well I'm not trying to make any submissions soon.

I do think it might be an idea to try such CVs with straight Capablanca Chess castling rules, just to see if fancier castling rules really are necessary - some people may prefer classical-style castling for tradition's (and simplicity's) sake.

https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/grotesque.html

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/erf/ReversoC.html

I added your suggestion about the setup to the Grotesque Chess page, along with a suggestion for another variation on the setup.

Here's an idea of mine for a CV invention that I'll study at leisure; it's based on a reverse symmetry re-positioning of the setup for Fergus' Grotesque Chess, except that the rules (including for castling) would be the same as for in Capablanca Chess (it might be called 'Highball Chess') - for one thing, I like that the Chancellors won't ever develop and then swap right away; bishops can avoid trading if desired, and position of the knights doesn't seem to pose any serious problems, either (there is no truly wonderful setup, for Capablanca Chess' armies, and tradeoffs in it seem necessary to seek an optimal solution; I stuck with Capa castling rules partly due to not wanting to bend tradition even more, partly to see if Capa rules were all that are needed, and partly so this CV idea is even more different from Grotesque Chess):

https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/grotesque.html

Fairy-Max confirms the given position is mate in 4. It prefers a slightly different line:

d5c3 b1a1 e3c2 a1b1 c2d2 b1c1 c3d1

In general 3-vs-1 end-games are very easy once the bare King is trapped in a corner (say resticted to a1-b1), You just approach with your second piece, and position it for the kill. The 3-vs-1 checkmating applet discusses what the requirement for the pieces is to be able to make that final kill. In this case it is even easier than usual, because the Wazir-Maos are so powerful that there are already checkmate positions that do not even need the white King. (Like the one Fairy-Max ends up in.) These can provide additional threats next to the normal patterns.

The hard part is usually to get the King in that corner.

Long ago I asked H.G. about the ending of K + 2HW vs. K, HW being Horse-Wazir compound. His intuition was that the HWs should be able to force mate (say on 8x8).

Perhaps someone with an engine or database that can include lame leapers (such as the Horse [aka Mao]) might be able to tell if the following position that I came up with has a shorter solution than mate in 4 for White, which I doubt. Another point is that it would seem once the lone king is cornered, the win shouldn't take long, as a rule, for this type of ending:

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/mao.html

White to play and mate; one solution I have is:

1.HWd5-c3 check kb1-a1

(if 1...kb1-c1 2.HWe3-e3 mate)

2.HWe3-c2 check ka1-b1 3.HWc2-b2 check kb1-c1

(if 3...kb1-a1 4.HWb2-a2 mate)

4.HWc3-e2 mate.

Here's another version of my (10x8) Officer Chess variant idea, which I may have rejected too fast - I'll study it at my leisure. It might be called (12x12) 'Brawl Chess', and again is a kind of extention of my popular (10x10) Sac Chess variant. Castling would be done on a player's second rank with either unmoved rook, with the unmoved king going 3 squares sideways. Pawns would move as in Omega Chess, i.e. initial double or triple step allowed (as are en passant capture possibilities). Pawns would promote on the last rank, to any piece type in the setup (except for king):

[edit: 22-Nov-2019 {edit: may be too harsh on this CV idea here}: Currently I don't like this idea much, as I think games might take way too many moves on average, if well played, and in any case it might take awhile in a game before the two sides begin to really come to grips in earnest. edit2: besides the 2 diagrammed ideas shown here, and in my previous post in this thread, I have 12 other variant ideas I'm still looking at now & then - these I mentioned in an edit to a posted comment about the Chess Variant Inventors page.]

[edit: 23-Dec-2020: J-L Cazaux has since invented a 12x10 CV {Very Heavy Chess} that uses the same piece types as in the above CV idea]

Thanks for the offer, wdtr2. I'll try to get around to making an unofficial preset for my (8x10) Officer Chess idea when I'm a bit less tired and also have more time.

Kevin if you want to play against me (Officer Chess)  Invite me.  I'd be glad to run prototypes (tests).

Thanks for the replies guys, however critical. The theme I had in mind with this Officer Chess variant idea is basically the same as what I had with Sac Chess, namely the standard chess pieces plus the classic compound piece(s) (i.e. crowned or knighted versions of the standard chess pieces). For Officer Chess I added in two more compounds, each triple compound pieces, to try to logically complete the classic bunch of crowned and knighted compounds (plus standard chess pieces).

As I wrote earlier, I originally wished to have two each of all the compounds (not counting the queen by itself), but that didn't work out on 12x10. It could work out on 12x12, but as a rule I don't think that board size would be remotely attractive except when played online rather than on a physical board. Not only that, but on 12x12 the Ns have rather a short reach, and somehow I'd rather have more camel/wizard type pieces, as in Gross Chess, which is a fine game (for online at the least, indisputably in my eyes). Also, a game played of a 12x12 version of Officer Chess might last way too many moves on average if played well enough, I fear, if armies of 36 units each are used. Note that castling is possible, along the second rank, for the (8x10) Officer Chess idea I'm still contemplating, though my doubts are now increased. Substantially modifying it would take more thought and work though, and it would become a different variant idea altogether.

With Officer Chess I had some hope of doing something fairly quick and dirty, else just forget it (or modify after a taking a break). Note that the popular (10x10) Sac Chess has not one but two amazons per army. I thank H.G. again for putting together a software package long ago that included that variant, though perhaps he has had a change of heart since regarding the merits of that game. Fergus has favorited it on this CVP website, which I consider a considerable endorsement, especially as Fergus also has the customary inclination to avoid including amazons in any variant as a rule (at least such a powerful piece type is on a considerably large board, in the case of Sac Chess). Aurelian's support for the (8x10) Officer Chess is encouraging, if I have any lingering doubts about just junking the idea, which is basically Sac Chess on a somewhat smaller board (perhaps allowing for shorter games on average, which is a plus). I'm not afraid to use a lot of super-pieces, as in chess major piece middlegames and endgames are often very exciting, for both players and spectators - and may lead to more decisive games.

I just see a few useless pieces. 1 rook, bishop, and knight (the standard ones) are superfluous. You already have one of them and then a king compound of the same piece. And if you remove the amazon you can get rid of four and it may make it easier to slim the game down evenly (even if I do like the piece and would love to see it in there somehow if it can be done without resorting to a weird board shape). 

But other than that it seems fine. I'd just simplify it that little bit and probably put the king in the back to allow for some castling. Then it's a little more like regular chess, albeit with a compound of every piece. 

Too many super-pieces, too few minors, for my taste. IMO, if a chess variant contains an Amazon, it already sucks.

Hi Aurelian

The back rank pieces are the same compound pieces I used for Sac Chess, plus a couple more compounds that I figure are both in between a queen and an amazon in value, on 8x10. However, I used all the compound pieces only once each, for this (Officer Chess) variant idea. The main issue I have is that the setup (the back ranks at least) is arguably rather ugly, but I had a reason to put just about every piece on those ranks where they are. Earlier I had tried to use each compound piece twice, on a 12x10 board, but the setup always had lots of pieces menacing towards the opponent's pawns right from the setup. With Officer Chess, that just happens with the edge pawns, though even that is worrying, if I want kingside castling to seem safe to the players much of the time.

For a while now I've run out of fresh ideas. One thing is, I don't have the technical skills (nor the burning desire to get them, if hard study required), say simply to be able to make a game with a random starting setup (e.g. on the back rank), nor how to make brouhaha offboard squares, for example (not that I have any clue on what new game I might ever use them for). Being able to have rules-enforcing presets for games would be good, as I suspect such games get played a lot more. However, again it's a matter of skill and not much desire to get it (there's also that I'd hate for a bug to come up if people played such a game of mine, if I wrote the preset, whether or not I was still coming to CVP website at such a time). Otherwise, I'd like it if Hannibal Chess and Frog Chess had rules-enforcing presets, for example. Meanwhile, more complex Ultima-style or wargame-style CVs are beyond my design imaginings right now, nor would I know how to upload any special graphics if necessary.

On a seperate note, I've sent you 6 personal GC invitations, if you haven't noticed yet, and care to accept any.

Why not? The back rank pieces are neat.

But your games do give me a feeling of more of the same.

I had an idea for a chess variant the other day, and I'll leave it here for now for study at my leisure. I'm not at all sure yet the idea is worth saving; this variant idea might be called 'Officer Chess', and would have rules like for FIDE chess, except the pawns could promote on the last rank to any type in the setup except a king:

[edit: 22-Nov-2019: {edit: may be too harsh on this idea here.} Currently I don't much like the very asymmetric back ranks, and long rectangular board, alone.]

As noted in another thread, I've just finished making a (as yet unofficial) preset for 'Waffle Chess' (new name for my original 10x8 Phoenix Chess variant idea - that name has since been taken for a variant submission in 2018 by someone else), in case I decide to submit it as a finished variant eventually. The setup would be as in my 2017-11-13 post in this thread, only using Wide Chess style castling rules in an effort to overcome possible difficulties developing pieces at all smoothly (I noted the new castling rules idea when editing that old post recently). Not yet sure this revised variant idea is attractive/feasible enough IMO, though. I've also made edits to old posts in this thread about 7 other old variant ideas I previously rejected - I'm still checking if any of these are attractive/feasible enough IMO, either.

[edit: 19-11-2018: Here's a diagram for a variant idea I'm looking at at my leisure, perhaps to be called 'Compound Chess' if I submit it. The pawns are standard sergeants (i.e. can make initial 2-step on same file as start on & can't capture en passant), which can promote to any piece in the setup except K. Rotated rook figurines represent Rook Alfil (RA) compound pieces (a more normal figurine unavailable in Alfarie: Many piece set), queen-like figurines are QAD compounds, & NP piece type (can, in pawn-like fashion, capture a sergeant en passant) is otherwise known as dragon (with this game's setup, it can never make a 2-step like pawn). Castling (with K & either RA) would be like in Capablanca Chess (there with Ks & Rs):]

Sergeant

Dragon

My tentative piece value estimates (for on this game's 10x8 board) would be: S=1.54(or 1.5 approx.); NP=5.07(or 5 approx.); BD=5.35(or 5.25 approx.); RA=7.1(or 7 approx.); NGU=7.58(or 7.5 approx.); QAD=12.45(or 12.5 approx.) and Ks fighting value=3.2. Note that e.g. just 3 sergeant pawns are worth about a NP or BD, which is why sergeants are to go with the chosen armies, i.e. to make trading a low number of them for a piece feasible at times, sort of as in chess. Also, all the pieces and pawns in the setup are arguably compound pieces (even a K, which can move like a ferz or wazir).

Bumping up this thread to repost a diagram of a (earlier rejected) possible setup for the old (10x8) 'WAD Chess' variant idea of mine to re-study at my leisure (note that castling is as in Capablanca Chess [K moves 3 squares sideways in the process], and that Dr. Muller has related that WAD+K can force mate vs. lone K on a 10x8 board); after having issues with other possible setups I tried, I borrowed Wildebeest Chess' idea of starting all bishops on the same side of the board, even though that variant's board has an odd number of files so as to justify the idea more. For a 10x8 board I tentatively put P=1; N=3.38; B=3.75; WAD(or Champion)=4.29; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25 and K's fighting value=3.2; also note that a WAD piece comes close to the average value for all non-pawn pieces in a chess army, IMHO, possibly in itself making WAD Chess a bit more of an interesting extension of chess. Note that before the endgame, I'd hazard to rate a B at least as valuable as a WAD on average, on a 10x8 board (it seems true for 10x10 with such armies per side, at least, as the commercial webpage for Omega Chess strategy suggests to me) [edit: after some study, the diagrammed setup still seems too ugly, at least, to me. That's on top of the B/c1 beaming towards the P/i7 plus the square h6, for example]:

WAD (Champion):

Looking just now, the current setup for Champagne Chess possibly has a defect that's at least a minor one, in that by developing a bishop to the square just in front of a king, one or both sides can put pressure on the enemy king's rook pawn on the second rank, if their queen is still on its original square. Defending by developing the king's knight towards the centre on the third rank is not quite reassuring enough to me, as the enemy's other bishop might be able to quickly take that knight from its original square. The only satisfactory response to a queen-bishop battery as described may be to push one's king's rook's pawn one square forward, so as to prepare eventual possible kingside castling, which seems a bit annoying from this inventor's point of view, if it's to always be the one and only routine response.

[edit: 16 April 2018: even after an l-pawn moves forward one square, an opponent could send his B to where the l-pawn was, after trading off a defending N (if the only defender aside from the R), which just might prove a major bother in a not infrequent number of cases perhaps, as not castling kingside might prove unpalatable - a serious defect for this variant idea enough I'm now inclined to reject it]

To be fair, a bishop seems modestly deployed otherwise when developed to the second rank just in front of the king [edit: all this assumes the opening phase has not been one where the j-pawn has been pushed two squares somehow by the otherwise l-pawn-defending side, though this might not happen very frequently in a well played opening].

[edit2: 27 Oct 2018: I've gone back and added a backup setup to my original post on my Champagne Chess variant idea, which may now be okay as a result, at least if Wide Chess-style castling rules are used, as stated there.]

Thanks Aurelian. This variant idea might end up being my last gasp (for at least a while) at coming up with the sort of thing that might meet most or all of my own stringent personal criteria for what may one day prove to be a candidate for a 'Next Chess' for many.

I originally tried 'Beast Chess' as a name, but that was taken elsewhere on the internet, as was a secondary choice ('Fairyland Chess'), then I wanted a name that suggested this was a wide game, without using the word 'wide' again. "Coast2Coast' and 'Sea2Sea' have been used for other things, too, and 'Rink' or "Prairie' (always followed by 'Chess') seemed just wrong. I liked 'Champaign Chess' more, but that again was already taken, on the internet. Then the idea of slightly 'misspelling' the first word of this occured to me (sort of like the inventor of Renn Chess did for his variant), and the final(!?) name choice seemed cool to me.

You are quite productive Kevin, that is quite neat :)!

I've had a 12x8 variant idea tonight, which I may dub 'Champagne Chess' if I eventually submit it, after I study the setup diagram at leisure. The Dragon pieces are after the 'Dragon' piece type mentioned in Piececlopedia, i.e. a Knight-Pawn compound piece. The piece would work as stated in the Piecelodepia article on it, except in this variant advancing two-steps initially is entirely ruled out during play of a game, as in the setup the piece begins on the first rank. Castling would be like in chess, except the king steps 4 squares sideways to do so (official rules, but by agreement the players might experiment with another castling rule of some sort). The Elephants depicted are Ferfils, i.e. they can also move like Ferz'. Notice that the pawns are all protected in the setup:

Dragon

I'd tentatively estimate the piece values (on the game's 12x8 board) as follows: P=1; E=2.34(or 2.25 approx.); N=3.06(or 3 approx.); B=3.75; D=4.58(or 4.5 approx.); R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; Ks fighting value=2.67.

{edit: Backup setup for Champagne Chess variant idea - seems okay if Wide Chess-style castling rules used, at least:]

After some study and reflection, I've rejected all but one of my relatively recent variant ideas that included the champion piece type (plus some old variant ideas I previously rejected, and still do). I'm now on the verge of submitting my 12x10 Wide Nightrider Chess variant idea, which includes the champion as a type.

{edit: Note to CVP editor(s): I've now submitted my Wide Nightrider Chess idea.]

Thanks H.G.

WAD + K vs K takes 39 moves at most, on 10x10.

On 10x8 a Bishop is relatively valuable; the Capablanca values have R=500, B=350/400 (depending on whether it is part of a pair), N=300. Normally leapers with 12 targets, such as WAD, are worth about as much as a Rook there.

@ H.G.:

Would you happen to know the maximum number of moves to force mate with WAD+K vs. lone K on a 10x10 board?

Also, would you happen to have a view on the comparitive values of a WAD and a B on a 10x8 board? I ask this last question since I'm trying to revive a 10x8 variant idea of mine where fast trades of a B for a WAD might occur right from the setup, and I'm hoping that it might be okay in your view for the side parting with a WAD to allow this. My own primitive formula for estimating their difference in value on 10x8 indicates such a trade is not so good for the side with the WAD (by about half a pawn), but it could be nice to see a differing view on this, if you have one.

I've gone back and added four diagrams to my second last post in this thread, to post the setups for 4 new variant ideas of mine, for me to study at leisure (tentatively these are called "SOHO Chess" (10x10), "Parity Chess" (12x8), "Chess 1210" (12x10) and "Wide SOHO Chess" (12x10)) - all share a number of the same piece types. [edit: I've since rejected all these 4 variant ideas, for one reason or another, as noted in the relevant post further below]

Thanks for that clarification on my post, H.G.

for this 12x10 board (has the drawback, if it is one, that WAD+K cannot always force mate vs. lone K on a 12x10 board)

Forcing mate on 12x10 is still no problem for WAD+K. (Maximally 47 moves. With WD+K it would take 67 moves.)

I've added edits to my last post in this thread, mentioning credit to Aurelian for a point, plus mentioning new diagrams (& estimated values) given with FN pieces involved, for in my 12x10 and 10x10 variant ideas [edit: I've since rejected any 10x10 version of WAD Chess I've come up with, regardless], that are added with edits to another relatively recent previous post (4 days ago) in this thread. [edit: after looking at the near-exact values for the WADs, Bs, Ns and FNs for both variant ideas possible setups, I've concluded these pieces from the point of view of comparing the highest to lowest will be considerably closer in value in the case if Ns are used rather than FNs for 10x10 WAD Chess, but for 12x10 Wide Nightrider Chess, if Ns are used instead of FNs then the range from highest to lowest piece is very slightly larger than if FNs are used instead of Ns, so using FNs for this particular 12x10 variant idea is slightly preferable from this point of view alone.]

[edit: SOHO Chess variant idea of mine to study; K castles by moving 3 squares sideways (otherwise as in FIDE) - the name comes from its being influenced by Shako, Omega Chess, Hannibal Chess and Opulent Chess, each to varying degrees:]

I'd estimate the piece vales for this 10x10 idea (at least in the endgame) as: P=1; C=2.75; N=3; B=3.5; FAD=CH=WZ=3.75; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10; K's fighting value=2.5 approx. [edit: I think I'll reject this variant idea, if only due to the setup, as the rook's pawns may be too tender if both sides castle on the same side, if cannon(s) and B(s) still hit said pawns]

[edit2: Backup setup for SOHO Chess - maybe variant idea just fine with this setup:]

[edit: Parity Chess variant idea of mine to study; officially K castles by moving 4 squares sideways (otherwise as in FIDE), though players by agreement can use other castling rules - the name comes the fact that 2/3 of the pieces are close in value by my estimations, aside from pawns; the setup has a lot of resemblence to the one for the historic variant Courier-Spiel, IMO:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x8 idea as: P=1; N=3.06(or 3 approx.); B=3.75; FAD=CH=3.86(or 3.75 approx.); R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.67. [edit: I think I'll reject this variant idea if only due to the setup, as the c- and j-pawns may prove tender enough as to restrict the ways the players can deploy their pawns and pieces. edit2: this 'defect' doesn't seem so terrible, in hindsight (which also suggests Wide Chess-style castling rules would seem to be a better way to go).]

[edit: "Chess 1210" variant idea of mine for study; rules same as for Parity Chess, except rules for pawn movement as in Omega Chess - this spinoff variant has the benefit that bishops might well be slightly easier to develop than might often be the case in Parity (there a pawn a B defends in the setup can soon be hit by an opponent's unmoved B), though 1210 has a lower pieces to empty cells ratio in the setup (plus also less parity among a number of the piece types' values, on 12x10), and pawns take slightly longer to reach the last rank:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x10 idea as P=1; N=2.83(or 2.75 approx.); FAD=CH=3.48(or 3.5 approx.); B=3.75; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.13(or 2.1 approx.). [edit: I think I'll reject this 12x10 variant idea, as knights a bit weak on 12x10, plus setup may still not be ideal, and it's similar to 12x8 Parity Chess but with more disadvantages]

[edit: Wide SOHO Chess variant idea of mine to study; no castling allowed:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x10 idea (at least in the endgame) as: P=1; C=2.75; N=2.83(or 2.75 approx.); FAD=CH=3.48(or 3.5 approx.); WZ=3.56(or 3.5 approx.); B=3.75; R=5.5; A=B+N+P=7.58(or 7.5 approx.); M=R+N+P=9.33(or 9.25 approx.); Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.13(or 2.1 approx.). [edit: I think I'll reject this 12x10 variant idea, as lots of pieces per army (36), castling impossible, R placement in setup not attractive, and Ns a bit weak on 12x10]

Note that for all 4 of these variant ideas, the Champion piece type (also known as a WAD) can force mate with the assistance of just the king vs. a lone K, thanks to the given variants' board sizes. Also for all these variant ideas, IMHO a B or C is worth at least a CH, FAD or WZ before the endgame phase, with a C being worth a B before said phase.

[edit3: Backup Wide SOHO Chess setup - variant idea seems not too bad with this; can use Capablanca Chess-style castling rules:]

Champion:

FAD:

Wizard:

Cannon:

Archbishop:

Marshall:

I've just realized a pretty point about the FN compound piece tonight. It turns out in a way it's the compliment of a WAD piece, that is, if you imagine a two square radius around a WAD piece placed on a board, in the centre,, a FN piece if placed on that WAD's square instead can move to every square that the WAD piece cannot (and vice-verca). [edit: Apparently Aurelian in an early post alluded this, which I didn't quite understand/appreciate at the time, as he referred to 'symmetry' being involved - 'complemetary' I think is a better term for how the WAD & FN piece types' powers relate to each other.]

This is such a pretty point that I'm now considering using FNs instead of Ns for my 10x10 WAD Chess variant idea, too, besides still possibly adopting Aurelian's suggestion for the Wide Nightrider Chess variant idea.

[edit: I've gone back and added diagrams with FNs instead of Ns, for my 12x10 and 10x10 variant ideas, and also given my estimate for the value of a FN in each case.]

I'm also looking a lot lately at my old 52Chess and Gamma2 Chess variant ideas (diagrams posted much earlier in this thread), with fresh eyes. [edit: I still don't like these two ideas, after further reflection.]

Agreed, pretty much. I usually equate ferz' and wazirs values for the purposes of having easier formulae for myself, but it seems likely that ferz' are worth just a little more, if anything.

I would definitely expect an NF to be worth more than an NW, although the difference would be microscopic.  Not only can the NF triangulate, but a Ferz is worth more than a Wazir.

I've added an edit to my previous comment.

Since then, I looked up an old piece type article on CVP (values of many pieces/pawns as found by ZoG, back in 2001) and found that a FN compound was thought to be almost worth a rook on an 8x8 board (while WN was rated just a shade more than a rook), and I would note that in this old article I've noticed many instances where I thought the value given was an underestimation more than the opposite (note that the value of a chess pawn is given as 1888.135, to better understand the scale used):

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/whos-who-on-8x8.html

Thanks for the advice Aurelian (and Greg). I'm still weighing it.. I know that Fergus used knights, still, on the even bigger 12x12 Gross Chess' board (though that game had lots of other pieces), and many times they have been used on 10x10. There are very few 12x10 variants in the database, so hard to compare the design to any such others! By my own way of weighing things, a knight is as about as close to being a competitive minor piece on 12x10 in one way (being a bit weaker than the other minors on average, perhaps) as some sort of an augmented knight (as suggested) would be in another way (being a bit stronger than the other minors on average).

If I accept the idea of using an augmented knight instead of a knight on 12x10 (attractive in one way since a nightrider already has a pure knight move, and then some) there are pros and cons to augmenting it either way suggested, i.e. either with a ferz or a wazir component, and it's not clear which way makes more sense, so perhaps it's a matter of taste. There is the 'theme' of using a ferz component to compliment the WADs wazir component, but it's also a theme just to use a knight,, to keep the 'pure FIDE pieces all used' idea; Greg's point of a (ferz-) augmented knight being capable of triangulating should not be taken too lightly either, as the whole idea of augmenting is to arguably improve the piece, rather than keep it pretty by sticking to some sort of artistic theme. A lot to agonize about here, in deciding on the final design. :) I hope no matter what I decide, I'll give that design a fair chance of becoming 'popular', perhaps even much later, even outside of the internet.

[edit: I've thought of a somewhat contorted way (given this is fairy chess, after all) to try to better justify (at least in my own mind) adopting Aurelian's suggestion of a ferz-knight compound in place of each knight in the setup, perhaps a justification that might make everyone happy (famous last words...). That is, a nightrider is a knight-like piece that cannot triangulate [edit: actually, it can!], while a ferz-knight piece is a knight-like piece that can, so they kind of complement each other. Thus, using instead (or adding also, if that were possible) a wazir-knight piece might not be seen as so desirable, for an additional artistic, if not also practical, reason than Aurelian wrote to Greg about. There's also the question in my mind as to why a ferz-knight piece should ever be used at all, if triangulating ability is always a practical drawback for a knight-like piece being used in any variant, and I'd hazard to guess that at least for some variants and their setups, a ferz-knight piece does have the right to exist. So, now I'll really have to study Aurelian's setup change idea even more. Note that in each of the two 12x10 variants in the database that I can find content for, knights (plus all the rest of the FIDE armies) are used, however, and one of these uses just 24 units per side in the setup.]