Well, you look how these other Diagrams with buttons do it, by looking at the Page Source, and then you copy that to your own page, and make the modifications you need for handling your case.

But I don't really applaud pages that have this for no good reason (such as a traditional oriental representation and a westernized one).

And what to do?

Ah OK, I see. The problem is that what has to be done for that differs from case to case. Because there is no uniformity between the naming of the image files in the various themes. What in one theme is called a cardinal, another might call archbishop or bishopknight. And some have capitalized names and color prefix, while others use lower-case only. And the there is of course the problem that they don't all support the same pieces. There is no Squirrel in Utrecht, no Concubine in Alfaerie...

So sometimes it is enough to just switch the Diagram's graphicsDir through a button, but in other cases you might have to replace all image names that are used by others. If it was just a matter of switching the graphicsDir, it would be easy to allow a comma-separated list of directory paths as value for graphicsDir, and let the Diagram script generate a row of buttons just above the message for selecting each of those (if there is more than one).

The buttons for each piece set near the diagram. Like in Chu Shogi, Seireigi…

I think Lev's talking about giving the user the choice of which set to see: push a button for Alfaerie, another for Galactic, another for Greenwade, another for Grigoriev, etc., as is done on many Interactive Diagrams (and which I'm working on for the Kagamigi games).

I don't understand what you mean. Intractive Diagrams can use any collection of image files in the same directory for pieces, provided they use the same prefixes for distinguishing white and black pieces.

Suggestion: I’ve long time ago thought about embedding my graphics instead of Alfaerie and Galactic in ID. But what if there’ll be different sets for this? Alfaerie, Galactic, Greenwade, Joyful, maybe in foreseeable future Cburnett.

Please tell me how to make the link to certain text on the page from another page (I’ve linked all pieces to piececlopedia, exc. for Astra (nothing to link) and Zip which I want to link with its description in Horizons). How?

What’s happened with promotions rule? I hadn’t seen this yesterday. And what’s happened with Shielder? (maybe I can agree (or deny) capturing from front of Shielder, but it mustn’t push Shielders). It’s intentional or bug? Probably it’s bug, but I didn’t see this on small iPhone yesterday. Maybe earlier iPhone versions don’t support, and newer do? I hope it’s bug of rules.

OK, I overlooked that. The Magician now also moves alongside the diagonal.

It is not clear to me what you mean by "Shielder's regulation of replacing rules". The text in the article is not clear enough. Am I correct in that the Shielder can push 1 or 2 enemy pieces diectly in front of it one step backwards (unless these are both Rooks), if there is an empty square behind those? Currently the Diagram is not capable of pushing more than a single piece. I can make the Shielder push a single piece one square back with its initial double step as well, if you confirm that this kind of pushing is what you meant.

The value of the Shielder probably would have to be increased manually: the fact that it cannot be captured from the front side must be worth a lot, and the Diagram does not take that into account when estimating the value. But I have no idea how much this would be worth.

One remark: can you watch Magician’s moves and make diagonal-based motion. And small Shielder’s regulation of replacing rules, but it’s not required for now.

Yeah, thank you very much!

but I think something like this would work even better:

Sure, and it would look even better with the PNG images:

But we have no rule here that everyone must use Alfaerie. Many contributions here do use the Small ('Chess Utrecht'), Motif, Abstract or XBoard sets.

They are cleaner and more distinct than the Galactic set, but I think something like this would work even better:

Actually I liked the smilies better than Galactic. It is just that these were rendered insanely large. The variant, as I implemented it now in the Interactive Diagram, is not nearly as bad and unimaginative as many I have seen here.

I took the first step of removing the smiley graphics. What I don't like about the Galactic graphics are that they are grainy looking, unevenly colored, and somewhat indistinct from each other. Since they're there mostly by the Diagram Designer, they could be changed to another set with a search and replace. But the question remains what to replace them with.

Back when Roberto Lavieri designed the Galactic set, I let Game Courier include it for those who preferred it, because Game Courier would not force anyone to use them. But the Diagram Designer, which I developed later, is a different matter, because viewers can't choose to just change the graphics for a page they are reading. So, maybe I should restrict the sets it can use.

I agree with these comments. There are at least two areas of concern why this page should not be published in its current state: the writing and the graphics.

The bad writing is a straight-forward issue. The author may not be a native English speaker or may just not be good at technical writing. That's ok - that's why we have editors. But editors should not publish something without doing the (sometimes significant) work of rewriting. And content submitters should not be surprised if no editor chooses to take the time to perform the editing - particularly if the content needs a lot of work and/or the idea isn't that good to begin with. The editors are volunteers and choose to work on what they consider to be valuable. I can say that for me, personally, how much work I am willing to put into bringing a page up to publication standards is directly proportional to how valuable I think the content is to begin with. Given that there are now thousands of Chess variants currently, it should be no surprise that, as time goes on, it is harder and harder to develop something new that is noteworthy to the community at large. This website is not a dumping ground for random ideas.

The graphics are another issue, but one that is less clear. I don't like the Galactic graphics but there have been valued members (e.g., Roberto Lavieri) who have chosen to use them as their preferred piece set. I think there is room for debate about what we should ask of submissions in this regard. There are trade-offs. But as I see it, this page has two main graphics problems: (1) There are two completely different sets, neither one of which is standard or recognizable, and (2) GIANT pointless images. This page is an extreme example, but there are lots of otherwise very good pages where the graphics are much larger than they probably should be.

In my view this page should be unpublished unless/until an editor takes the time to correct these issues.

Well, I suppose there is no accounting for taste, although it beats me why anyone would use Galactic when Alfaerie is available. But what disgust me is the lack of unity in the graphics. For no apparent reason the setup is shown twice, once in Galactic, the other in a kind of fantasy theme. And the diagram of the latter is 1.5 times as large. And then there seems a completely pointless display of a subset of the pieces below the large diagram, still at a 3 times larger scale.

The move diagram of the Magician appears twice, one of the two double the size of all other move diagrams, again for no apparent reason. Wording is unclear in many cases: 'passtaking' seems to mean 'en passant capture', and the part about not being able to capture a Shielder when he is watching you is mysterious. Is this just after the Shielder moves? Is the Shielder always 'iron' for attacks coming from the fronst?

I can't bear to look at the graphics on this page. I have never liked the Galactic set, and these huge smiley graphics are like something from a nursery room.

I removed the Unique Pieces tag, because there is nothing stopping other games from using the same pieces, and then they wouldn't be unique any longer. Tags should be used for non-relational properties, not for relational or comparative properties like unique or best.

I am surprised that this article was published. The English is rather poor, and I can hardly understand what the rules are. The layout is awful; there is an enormous disparity in the size of the various graphics. The Berolina Pawn is presented like it is a new invention for this game.

It seems the Shielders can push away pieces, but it remains unclear where these pieces then end up. This Diagram assumes you can push one piece, and it goes one square backward.

For each warrior. Thank you for your looking.

Once in the game warrior can take (capture) 2 spaces forward (if first is empty).

Does this mean once for each warrior, or that each player may only make one such warrior capture in the game?

I corrected some of the formatting of this page. However, the graphics need to be fixed. The setup diagram appears to be incomplete, and it looks like you tried to paste graphic images onto the page. This will not work. What you need to do is upload each of your images and add proper links to them. There is a link for this in the Edit menu when you are logged in.