Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

One point about this variant is the total strength of the array. The
simple
pieces have all the moves of the compound ones twice over. The key could
be
to think of the usual goal of capturing enemy pieces quicker than they
capture yours into gaining offensive advantage by capturing simple pieces
while preserving ones own compound ones and gaining defensive advantage
by
the reverse. The FIDE thought proces is often interms of exchanging
pieces
of the same type. The question here might be in terms of thinking in
terms
mainly of evaluating a compound piece against a number of simple ones
(typically three given the restraints to compounds?).
	All the same I can see that a subvariant in which compound pieces can
indeed cross the River in some limited way would be less divegent from
FIDE Chess and might go down well. A thought occurred to me to allow
crossing orthogonally forward and diagonally backward, or in the Gnu's
case Knightwise forward and Camelwise backward. Within each half of the
board they would be unrestricted, as would promotion on both end ranks. I
could envisage a similar subvariant of Anglis Qi itself, and also of
Alibaba Qi
(http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSdualdirectionv),
an all-compound varaiant whose basic form allows crossing orthogonally or
Knightwise but not diagonally or Camelwise. Perhaps as all three vasic
variants end in Qi the subvariants should substitute some other Chinese
word conveying the divergent crossing. This might be better than the
other
alternative, prefixing with some attributive word resulting in long names
-
as well as being in keeping with the existing Anglis and Wildeurasian
indexing. Suggestions are welcome.

Since my last comment I have a posted a variant that relaxes River restrictions in a simpler fashion

It insists that the King and at least half the compound pieces of the same army remain on their own side of the River. This can make for a sudden need to withdraw if enough compounds pieces are captured. How does that sound as an option for Wildeurasian Qi itself?

I could use some advice on editorial policy for this one:

When a variant is unplayably poor, such as this one (due to the problems already spotted by Fergus), should we then still equip it with an Interactive Diagram that plays according to these flawed rules?

Bad variants don't deserve an ID. They would be a waste of time. And this game is needlessly complicated. This coming from someone who likes steppe learning curve games.

I have reread the rules of the game and now they seem understantable. Still an unplayable game does not deserve a ID.

As a layman on this website I'm not sure how much my opinion weights, but we the people of the simple inventors, should maybe have a saying too. The principles stated by Fergus here: https://www.chessvariants.com/opinions.dir/fergus/design.html , should be softly employed by all inventors. Sure one can make a more lengthy game which is a bit tedious, some of us, me included, have done that, but what is sacrificed in time should be gained in enjoyment. I'm not saying games should be marginalized or outright rejected out of the bat just for being a bit over the top, there would be plenty of cases where editors won't be able to easilly tell if a game is good. But some hurdles need to be applied. I'm saying this because I see a good few new games a week and they don't seem to add to anythink. I've done that too with ENEP. It was my first, and just a whim in a evening. The inventors should show that their game is thought through at least a bit. Sorry for my ranting but I think I have a point.

PS I have myself have deleted a submission of mine a while ago. I think it was called ultra grand cavalier chess. I do not know about it's playability, but it was meant to be part of a series where a take some games and make them bigger, many times as a homage to the inventor of the initial game. I figured out I cannot invest the time in such a project because it is too hard for me to desing the variants I am designing, with all I want for them like having a PC program that plays them. My point is that inventing chess variants should be at least somewhat difficult as otherwise we will get mostly plain games. Any of us can invent tommorow 24 games, and not necessarilly of the bad kind. I have done that with my Frog/Hannibal/Waffle chess with Gryphon/Manticore and falcon. But I am not sure about the meaning of those games. My personal opinion is that an accepted game should exibit an whatever would be a interesting coeficient of around 80% of my above mentioned games.