Comments by avunjahei

Do you mean the game scores of Yamagata? But they are composed games, aren't they? The first scores of really played games i know are from the early 20th century, but i don't remember where i have that from.

Do you know the earliest game scores of Standard Shogi? I don't!

Jeremy, if you find time, you could look at this game, too. It's no fun to play with 2 bishops of the same colour. (or maybe it is, I'm too conservative...)

The starting array is wrong. Betza's sample game has Archbishop and Nightrider changed their places compared to the starting array on the preset. Also, here you would have an unprotected pawn in front of the Archbishop, that can be threatened by the Nightrider on the first move. This cannot have been the intention of the inventor. He also clearly states that the "pieces are distributed to defend all the Pawns."

I played it again after long time and regret having given a bad rate to it. Formerly I didn't like that all games are attacks of both opponents on their right side while defending on their left side. Now trying it out again in fact I see no wrong with this predestined mutual races. Also the ensemble of pieces is well well chosen and work well together, like in all of Paulowitch's variants that I know. Although far inferior to FIDE chess it is a nice try.

The Camel attacks the opponent's Knight immediately when both are on their most natural developing square. I think this is a major flaw in games featuring both camels and Knights. Since Camels are worth less this hinders the development of the Knights. It would be better to have the Camels on b and i instead of c and h.

Inferior to Hadean Chess. The Flying pieces fit better into the game with more restricted movements. In this ensemble they kinda "swallow up" the rooks and bishops, turning them into inferior pieces, for the flying pieces can do everything what they can do as well.

There should be a rule: don't post games with undefended pawns in the starting array!

I played just one game and I think it's very good. It is a logical and well balanced combination of pieces and gameplay is interesting. Games do not have to be original. Games have do be designed for getting played, that's all.

Or is this book a kind of Uncyclopedia?

Objectively there is too much power for such a - relatively - small board, but it is nice - though difficult - to play. The Unicorn is not easy to handle, but it is a very elegant piece.

Now I find the Swapper ok, but the pawns too strong. Is there really a need to give them also the power of promotion?

No well worked out starting array.

The opposing Camels can attack the Knights immediately, when they are developed on their most natural squares. Since the Camel is of minor value than the Knight (being a colourbound piece)this makes opening play rather awkward.
Superficially the corner squares seem to be a good place for the Camel in the opening. But let us consider to remove them to the b and i files. Opening play would be much less restricted now.

That also would have 2 further advantages. 

1. The Camel now would have 2 natural developing squares in the 3rd rank instead of only 1

2. One of them would be in competition with the most natural developing square of the Knight. So the player has to choose.

All that would cause opening play to be more variable.

And finally, involving the Knight in castling seams unnatural. Why not involving the Guard instead? He is more difficult to develop.

Years ago I had exactly the same idea, but when I tested it, I didn t like it at all. I guess, to design a game featuring a Royal knight, it needs more than just switching the roles of knight and king.

Oh, thank you for the link. Guess it is the first modern chess variant a game score involving a grandmaster{even a worldmaster]is extant.