Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I hope the updated rules do make sense. The only complaint I still have is that I couldn't find a piece that could properly represent the Treasurer. Apart from that, if there is anything else that still needs to be worked on, please let me know.

Two questions from my last comment remain unanswered:

Why do treasurers switch sides "as many times as it takes"?

To add, that phrasing sounds like there's some sort of chain reaction that could happen, but I don't see how that would work?

More generally, I think the description of the treasurers could be made clearer? They (1) convert pieces they capture, placing the converted piece on any empty square, (2) only give check by a king's move (cannot capture the king by queen's move), (3) upon their own capture, are converted as in (1), and (4) cannot face each other along queen lines. Oh, (5) cannot capture two turns in a row. Is that correct and exhaustive? Can you (likely rephrase and) move that into the Pieces section to fully describe the treasurer?

When placing a Watcher on the earthly domain, a player has to make sure that his own King will not be in check if it turns out to be an enemy piece.

Does this mean it's illegal to move a watcher if any possible piece it could turn out to be would give check?

Thanks again for your suggestions. Just made the required changes. There is only one thing I have to disagree with. That is about the Treasurers and how they move. Ok. I have removed the "immobilisation" stuff to keep it simple. But I have created the Treasurers to add chaos and unpredictability on the board. That's why, I think is better to keep the way they move as described above.

Most of my critiques are from the perspective of a writer/proofreeder, with an eye to making this easy to read and understand, though there are a couple of thoughts here from a prospective player (which I am; I think this looks like something worth playing).

So I'll start with what'll probably seem like a nitpick: "flipped" has two P's. (I only see one time where you get this right.)

For the Setup, I'm not sure what the purpose is for the two different views, though I will say that I like the second one (with the neutral pieces in grey) better. I'd recommend listing the Peacemaker and Watchers as a completely separate section (Black, White, Grey).

I'm also not sure why the Treasurer has a lion icon, though I certainly do understand how it can be hard oftentimes to find an appropriate icon for a new piece.

Actual nitpick: All the chess rules apply except that Castling is not used. (Player's perspective: Why not?)

Each of the four new pieces (Heavy Knight, Peacemaker, Treasurer, and Warden) should have a subsection, with a header, describing all of the rules pertaining to it. That includes moving all such text from the Rules sectioin to there.

The Heavy Knight is basically the piece more often called a Centaur, Counselor, or Crowned Knight. Noting that here (including the link) would be helpful for veterans, and a move diagram would be helpful for newbies.

The hardest part to understand is how the Treasurer captures. It seems to be left as implied  that it does it by moving next to the target piece and performing a rifle capture, but I'm not clear on whether that happens immediately or as a separate move. And if it's a rifle capture, there seems to me to be no need to move the converted target. If the target is moved, then it would seem simpler to drop it onto the starting space (or a starting space) for the piece on its new team.

Since all the other pieces apparently capture by displacement (as usual), the suggestion for moving to the starting space might apply to captured Treasurers.

Another simplification for the Treasurer would be that Treasurers are simply immune to each other's influence. The Immobilization seems to me like an unnecessary complication. (Alternately, they could convert each other instantly, effectively switching places.)

A physical description of the Watchers, for those playing with physical pieces, would be good. My impression is that they'd be a set of disks, probably grey, with something on the underside stating what piece they act as once they enter play. A subsection under Notes could even be a brief "how--to" on making them.

The bit about a player declining (a better word, I think, than "refusing") the second turn is best put right after that turn is mentioned.

The Peacemaker's inspiration from Duck Chess (including a link) would be welcome in the Notes. Another thing for notes (besides that and the above-mentioned "how-to") would be advice to have a full extra set on hand (minus Kings, but plus two Peacemakers) to drop in place of converted Watchers, plus maybe a few extras for Pawn promotion.

The description of Peacemakers should be clear without the reference to Duck chess. It's just a neutral king-moving obstacle, yes?

I don't understand the second win condition. Treasurers convert by capturing, not moving adjacent to, right? And then why the note about the treasurer getting captured in the next move?

Why do treasurers switch sides "as many times as it takes"?

When placing a Watcher on the earthly domain, a player has to make sure that his own King will not be in check if it turns out to be an enemy piece.

Does this mean it's illegal to move a watcher if any possible piece it could turn out to be would give check?

I don't really understand the treasurer immobilization; so you mean that even after the one immobilization turn, they can only move without capturing?

Believe it or not, the rules for this game are very simple. But I wanted to make memorising openings no longer feasible, and also take some advantage computers have against humans.

Thanks. Good point. I'll make the necessary adjustments.

I think that maybe because the page consists of too much text, it is difficult to review it and be sure that the content of it actually works.

I personally would prefer to see more simple games, such as the L-game, or something that is governed by an efficient idea, like Perfect chess, which is the best variant in my opinion that incorporates piece compounds. This world is already more complicated than it should actually be.

One advice to you.

For me, Treasurer is imbalance strong, and if I was you, I’d fixed its range to 3-5 squares.

All other rules are good, your variant is new though it has already inspired me to create {something new also}.

Thanks. That gives me hope. I am also working on a chess variant for mathematicians called Mathematicess. That is much more complicated but still original. I only want to publish original stuff.

I understand your feeling. I had not paid attention to your proposed variant before. I've seen many proposals here which are arguable, but yours looks good as far as I can tell. I'm not an editor though. I hope you will not give up, we are not a big crowd interested by these eccentricities.

Unpublished content is hidden only for non-members. We already can make suggestions or revisions (but not publish it because we aren’t editors).

I also have this issue :)

I think I just gonna give up. I don't understand you guys. Why is taking so long? I know, everyone is busy, but why don't we allow games to be published first on a forum, or something, where people can make suggestions, in order to speed up the process?

I understand that this is a volunteers based community but why is taking so long for a reply? I am willing to help myself if given a chance. Maybe we can invent something that would speed up the process.

Please let me know if the updated rules meet your requirements. It's been a long time.

I believe this game might be ready for publishing. Please let me know if there is anything else that still needs to be worked on.

Oh, I thought it was using the SVG. I now uploaded new PNG too.

OK, done!

Although it looks like you have updated the SVG images, you have not updated the PNG images this diagram is actually using. They are still colored #909090, and their timestamps are from before I got up this morning.

OK, done!

Based on further tests using my monitor's ePaper mode, which turns the screen monochrome, I would recommend #BDBDBD for the shade of grey. I got this value by taking the highest value in the blue color of #5984BD and applying it to every component of the color. The current value of #909090 has each component only slightly higher than the middle value of that color, which may account for why they look more alike on a monochrome display.

The grey is hard-coded in the SVG pieces, where only 'white' filling (actually #f9f9f9) will be recolored to make the 'black' pieces. The grey (#909090) remains untouched. It should be easy to replace this by another color value with a text editor, though. Would #a0a0a0 do, or should it still be lighter?

An alternative would be to redesign the pieces with some dotted pattern for filling.

On e-ink screens, the grey pieces look more different in color from the blue pieces than the red pieces do, though they still look closer in color to the blue pieces than they do to the white pieces. I tested both versions on my Likebook Mars and my Kindle Scribe, and I compared a different version on each device side-by-side, then switched them. Based on these tests, I would recommend grey over red, and I would recommend a lighter grey over the current shade of grey.

Since the red and blue pieces appear to be the same color on the e-ink screen of my Likebook Mars, I am posting this alternate version of the setup to test how it looks on the same device.

Thank you very much. I have updated the image trying both nqueen and nchecker. I think the last one looks better.