Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

That Mad Chess was 'extensively commented'? Seven comments: discount the first by inventor himself. Second comment says in a few words that it makes chess 'unisexual.' Better 3rd and 4th comments do not seem to be aware of Betza's Chess Different Armies. That 4th compares the pieces among themselves; I have tried to add comparisons far and wide among disconnected large CVs. 5th comment cites Betza at last. 6th comment ridiculously compares Mad Chess to Ultima. 7th comment for 'F+' generally pans chess-unequal-armies types. Moderately commented back then, Mad Chess deserves some attention for some interesting pieces.

Actually, this was commented on heavily during the 100 squares contest as part of the voting -- see <a href='../large.dir/contest100/votes.html'>100 squares votes</a> for details.

'MNO,LargeCV': Without Comment 5 years, Chess-unequal-sides game should cite Betza's Chess Different Armies, once called Chess Unequal Armies. Contrast 100 squares here to Wittman's recent 6-square Dueling Archbishops and 9-square Knight Court. Under eleven(11)squares are rare and some sizes thankfully nonexistent. White's pieces include Jester(=Marshall) not to be confused with Jester Chess Jester or King's Court Jester; General(N+D+A) dated before 1683 from Italy in Archchess as 'Centurion', called 'Squirrel' in 20th Century; Dragon as (Q + Trebuchet(0,3)); Crazy Footsoldier and Valkyrie both having their move and capture different, as in earlier(1999) Divergent Chess, which established a short-lived trend. Black's all different pieces from White's include Warlord(N + Trebuchet); 'divergent types' Berserker [not Battle Chieftain's Berserker] and Mad Infantryman; Spectre(Q + Tripper(3,3)). Altogether not bad, but with sake of clarity would avoid divergent move/capture pieces where already pieces are distinct between W & B. Yet these two could well be plugged into Ralph Betza's list with across-the-board weakening, such as Mad Chess 'pawns'(See rules).