Game Reviews by JianyingJi

I have followed the development of spartan chess in the comments, and I must say I am deeply impressed, especially by the collaboration of H.G.Muller and Steven Streetman. The use of applied computational variantology (to coin a phrase) is a tour-de-force. This is how computers should be used in this field that we are in. I see a bright future in this approach.

I also look forward to a bright future for spartan chess!

Horray for the unique mechanism! (well some joe joyce's large variants has enabling pieces that allow other pieces to move or capture, but still that is very different from this variant) As for computer play, it does alter drastically the evaluation function, and depending on the subtlety and complexity of the function, the play will differ widely in quality. It certainly would spread it out some.

very sensible.  I like the odd rows between pawns, this has the effect of reducing first player advantage, since if first player presses its advantage the second player gets one tempo more to answer, where as with even rows between pawns the parity is such that first player gets the tempo.

The no draws rule needs more clarification, since there are many position in chess that a resolution is either impossible or too far in the future. Then there's stalemate. Each of these three cases has to be addressed to have the game become drawless.

The lack of innovation of this commercial game suprises, one would have
thought that they do their due diligence and seek out something more
innovative, as very much on displayed here. Most of the games on these
pages easily out flanks games such as this.

Here's the challenge: What is the most minimal change of the rules that
one can propose that would make this game much more innovative?
Suggestions?

A great game with a very fresh idea!

I have a small point:

Having the second player mirror the first player's piece layout while
allowing both to layout thie terrain (the black squares) separately give
the first player a unequal advantage. Since the first player can always
layout the pieces to make it difficult for the opponent. The opponent
would be forced to start off at a disadvantage. 

The simple solution is to allow the players to lay out pieces, the way
terrain is laid out, separately. No need to enforce symmetry.

Very interesting game, and fairly modest too, which I like. I have  a few
quick observations:

I.  a-file and 8th rank is safe from the angels neither angel can jump
over them due to the edge on the left side.

II. By switching the demon and angel on the h-file with the knight on the
i-file their coverage is expanded so only the 8th rank becomes safe from
angel-fire, and the demons cover the whole board. Aethetically, you gain a
more symmetric setup. Moreover, with the white side holding the marginally
weaker angels, the first player advantage is probably canceled.

III. to make both side even more equal, you might consider making it 7 or
9 ranks (9 being my preference, a hint of dante) instead of 8, this way
there will be no safe zone from angel-fire

IV. to make a greater hommage to your inspiration you might make the game
byzantine by joining the left and right sides of the board.

hopefully you find my comment interesting and perhaps useful...

Cool!

one thing I find a bit aethetically off is that linking is not compulsary
in that player could ignoire linking completely and play normal chess. So
to satisfy my twisted aesthetics I would recommend following changes as a
sub-variant:

0. Twinkie Danger Chess rule apply unless contradicted below.
1. White start on board 0 and black start on board 1
2. King remain on the board they started

In this sub-variant no progress can be made without linking, so linking
becomes crucial way to mobilize your forces.

This list is quite comprehensive, and quite impressive. Which makes it 
doubly strange that the odds chess has not persisted in any serious way 
in chess clubs today, especially organizations such as FIDE to determine
the rating, handicap correspondence.

interesting variant, I wonder if giving king a knight's move would make
the king too hard to capture. With all those combo pieces, it seems only
fair to give the king a bit more movements too.

I was thinking along these lines sometimes ago, but my ideas never geled
into a playable game. So it very nice to see some incarnation of it. 
Absolutely cool!

excellent game,

one of the illustration has the wrong coloring for the squares. The 
second set in the middle of the page, board2 should have the opposing
coloring

Really well designed and explained large variant without the clutter that
often afflict them

Since white has slight opening advantage, it would be more equitable
if the game start with black refusing one move from white and then 
white move and refuse black then game continues as described ...

This been an idea I been thinking of for a while. It pleases me to no end
that someone has made a variant along these lines. It would be great to
see more variants using 'influencing' as an element in them.