Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

No, it's not. You should add a graphic diagram. You can do this with the Diagram Designer.

Could you help me to do this. I've tried so many times to create graphic diagrams here on your site and I can't seem to get it right. If I give an external link to an image, then according to the publication rules, this variant of chess may not be published at all. I've added the image from musketeerchess.net as an attached file.

My submission is ready for publication. I was able to add diagrams.

Surely it must be possible to produce an image better than that? What is the point of showing an empty board in addition to the initial setup? And why is there a large blue area above the image of that position? The file labels do not correspond to the text description of the setup: the rightmost file uses x instead of z.

I agree that the empty board should be removed. The large blue area is due to putting too large a number of empty spaces (made blue rather than board spaces by the limit to number of rows): replacing the 384 at the beginning of the code string by 96 should work. For file labels that's a parameter in the diagram designer (and resulting image url string) and can easily be fixed, but it's worth saying something in the text: you want to skip x so that capture notation doesn't conflict.

Also, there's an odd pattern of blue strips between some rows and columns. Changing the scale parameter to 60 seems to fix it; other numbers give different patterns. Probably better is to use the default scale for the diagram designer, but then scale it down in the page.

But is there some motivation for this game? There are other games that just push together multiple boards & piece sets. Does this one stand out as better in some way? Why so much space behind the pieces?

I believe that there should be some criteria to limit the number of submissions, which propose concepts that can be regarded as being too generic or unoriginal, similar to the system used in patents. Maybe there's an idea behind this variant, why it was made this way and whether it will be interesting to play, but it is not described.

Why only rectangular boards? Although we are limited to only 3 regular tilings, there are still endless amounts of undiscovered spaces, which can suit the idea of translating chess onto them.

I am unfortunately not a programmer and have never worked with Diagram Designer before. I'm having some difficulty trying to use this tool. I will delete this diagram that I spent over 3 hours on and looks so awful. As for the empty space in the rear of both armies. All this space is effectively used by long-range pieces to regroup forces from flank to flank. There are interesting complications that do not exist in ordinary chess. Although all the rules of standard chess and three sets of pieces are used here without the involvement of fairy ones.

Yes, Mr. Koval, the idea is undoubtedly present behind this variant, but a whole book is not enough to describe it. If possible, I will describe the idea in my blog on chess.com and lichess. There is a great place for reasoning and philosophy of chess there. I hope that when the game is implemented online, we will be able to play and feel the deep and beauty of Grand Triple Chess.

The Diagram Designer does require some understanding.  Here are the steps to do this particular diagram:

1. Put in the FEN code "24/24/24/24/rnbqqbnrrnbqkbnrrnbqqbnr/pppppppppppppppppppppppp/24/24/24/24/PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPRNBQQBNRRNBQKBNRRNBQQBNR/24/24/24/24"

2. Change the "Number of Columns" to 24

3. If desired, change the "Set" to Alfaerie or whatever

Here is a resulting diagram:

Sorry you had to struggle with it so long.

I believe that there should be some criteria to limit the number of submissions, which propose concepts that can be regarded as too generic or unoriginal, similar to the system used in patents. Maybe there's an idea behind this variant, why it was made this way and whether it will be interesting to play, but it is not described.

I do believe we should limit submissions.  As time goes on and there are more and more variants, the criteria for publication should become more difficult.

That said, I think this is something new.  The wide board with multiple sets has been done before but the space behind is new.  It reminds me of Chess on a 12 x 12 Board, but without extra space on the sides.  I think this setup gives the flank bishops the opportunity to attack the center by moving downwards.  And it gives the rooks an ability to increase their mobility by moving down.  The knights on the far wings, however, are probably worthless.

To Greg Strong. Thank you very,very,very much!!!

My submission is ready for publication.

I had asked about motivation, and you gave some, and Greg added a good point about bishops really benefiting from the large back space (as opposed to the 1-2 rows in other variants). I do share his concern for the outside knights (and really, all of them to a lesser extent).

I'm publishing this now, but I would suggest adding into the text somewhere about the motivation, and the use of the large rear space benefiting bishops in particular.

I had tried to help with the graphic, but Greg has gone a step further and implemented it, so again thanks to him.