Comments by flowermann

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSstallmatechess (see also comment by A.Black).
I think, when tournament is played, peace may be alternative winning condition, wich costs 0,75 victory for both players.

Very interesting variant. Looks like more modest variant of advanced wizard chess (but here air piece plays more importontant role) - http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/advancedwizardchess.html
What about subvariant, where land units can capture air units (for example, pawns captures pieces directly above)?

Good. So, rook and unicorn from my 64 triangles was invented before me.
Interesting interpretation of 'sideways' (compare to my Triangular xiang-qi).
Hey, there are already quite many triangular variants! Maybe, there should be some shortcut in making triangular GC presets (other than hexagonal board, where one of colors is not used)?

I seen one 3D variant, where bishop moves as bishop only within one level,
to change it, he must move as unicorn. If bishop moves in this way, all
cells of same column should be like-colored.
It's not logical enough, but, maybe, it's easier to visualize than real
bishop move.
I don't remember, how other pieces moves in this game. Rook probably had
only normal rook's moves, but it would be more logical if rook also were
able to move as bishop without changing file and rank (and changing level).
And knight should move as knight within it's level and as 2,1,1 leaper to
go to next or previous level.

I have idea for another triangle xiang-qi variant, as chess, described in this my comment - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=26523
It may be better and much closer to standart xiang-qi. Probably, i'll make it a weak or two later.

I like this idea, i would like to play it, but equipment is hard to make.
According to this logic, on 3D board rook should be able to move as rook or unicorn and knight as knight or ninja (2,2,1 leaper). And on triangle board rook should be spire (see 'Delta 88') and knight should be compound of knight and ninja (see '64 triangles').

Actually, there is infinitive number of possible triangle tesselation: any polygon can be divided into triangles (number of triangles is same as number of i's sides). In all triangle variants i know this polygon is hexagon, in tesselation i suggested, it's rectangle. And large triangles, composed of triangular cells can be arranged in same ways as cells.
But there are two most interesting tessellations, i see: the own that i described before and 3 triangles arranged in one large triangle, 3 such large triangles are arranged into larger triangle, and so on (it should have 27 or 81 cells).

Playing on corners of squares changes nothing: board is still rectangular.
Playing on borders (there is a game - Border wars by Jared McComb), at
first sight makes new shape, but acrually board is still rectangular (turn
it 45 degrees).
Playing on hex interesections will make triangular board and vice versa.
And what will be if game will be played on borders of hexes and triangles?!
And, if it will make new shape, what about playing on corners of borders of
these shapes?! And what with other shapes? It's quite interesting way to
make new board shapes.

Piece movement reminds Wellisch hex chess: knight also moves 1 diagonally, king moves orthogonally only. There is no bishop in Wellisch chess, but this piece is actually not bishop, rather another kind of rook.

Shenshuai: sorry that i answered this comment only after a few years :). What is this 'ninja-pirate war'? Maybe, ninjas are shogi-like pieces? Or, even more interesting variant: board have many non-game spaces (sea). Most of pirate pieces cannot cross 'water', but they can control 'ships', and most of ninja pieces are leapers and they can jump over sea.

Good subject.
I have a request: unequal armies game, where one player have usual king,
other have royal queen, wich can't make single step (as picket in
Tamerlanee chess). Game can be themed as short range vs long range, for
example, if one player have rook, other player have modern dababa
(dababa+wazir), if one player have bishop, other have modern elephant
(shatranj elephant+shatranj ferz), or short range player have pieces from
Grand shatranj.
I'm thinking about game on 6x6 board (here values of short range and long
range pieces, used here, are close), but i'm not sure that it' balanced:

rbnqbr
pppppp
------
------
PPPPPP
DANKAD

D - modern dababa, A - modern elephant, q - is weak royal queen i described
above, other pieces are usual.

Or a large board, where short range player have Grand shatranj pieces
instead modern alfil and dababa, plus  players have strong knight variants:
nightrider for LR, squirel for SR. And pawns are stewards for SR and
pawnriders for LR.

If all pieces of both sides changes, why not make transformation optional?
Another idea: when player makes move, he choses to change either kind of movement (rook, bishop, knight, camel, etc.) or capturing method (replacement, overtaking, custodianship, etc.)? 'Pieces of same type', wich also changes, are only pieces, wich have both same kind of movement and same capturing methods. Or ALL pieces, wich had property,  wich was changed (all pieces, moving as rook or all pieces, capturing byovertaking) also transforms! Or, for example, if piece, wich had knight's move changed capturing method into custodianship, all piece with knight's move's now captures by custodianship.
Capturing with special methods by knight must be specified: knight's leap can be considered as one step knightrider or as another way of movement. In second case, knight's move can be defined as moving 2 steps orthogonally and one at right angles (and camel's move in this case is '3 orthogonally and 1 at right angles' or '2 diagonally and 1 at right angles') or as moving 1 orthogonally and 1 diagonally outwards.

Another one:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSgrandjanggi

It's just Spartan and standart chess, played with bughouse rules.
But these 2 variants would be interesting:
1) One one board both players have armies A (standart, for example) and on other board both players have armies B (Spartan, for example);
2) 2 Armies on same board are unequal, on second board armies are same, but teammate have different army.
Any unequal armies game, played according to one of these rules, will be balanced :).

What do you think, will such variant be roughly balanced, or one of players
will have large advantage, or it depends on exact set of pieces?
Unequal armies game, where moves of all pieces are 'reversed'; for
example: player A have silver general, player B have reverse silver on same
position (reverse gold and silver have certain names in shogi, i don't
remember); player A have piece, moving backward as rook, forward and
sideways only one steps away, other player's piece on same position moves
forward as rook, 1 step backward and sideways, etc.

Is there variant with 4 pawn types (2 of each): third is exactly like Shogi pawn, plus non-capturing double step, fourth moves and captures diagonally forward (and also have initial double step)?
And about en-passant capture: any pawn can capture any pawn with this method, right?

What about this: builder captures by withdrawing and approaching?
By the way, original builder looks like fire devil from Tenjiku shogi (with serious differences, of course).

Several similar games exists, e.g.:
http://www.chessvariants.org/crossover.dir/byelorussian.html

Well, of course, it's most probably not the first chess, but i think that it can be roughly balanced opponent for FIDE chess in Chess with Different Armies:
Powers of pawns, bishops, knights and rooks are similar. General and advisor with special moves are better than one king (i think). And two elephants with pawns, already advanced on 3rd rank may compensate the rest value queen (correct me if i'm wrong, i know that i'm bad at counting piece values). Only promotion rules must be changed. Two variants: FIDE also promotes pawns only to captured pieces, or Shambhala chess can promote pawns to non-captured pieces (including general and advisor with special moves), while FIDE can't make new queens (elephants, maybe, but not generals and advisors).

Calvin Daniels, playing with camels is just like playing with knights, but on diamond board with 32 squares. But zebras (for example) will make different game.
What did you imply when you said 'centaur'? There are several pieces with such name. If you meant king+knight (probably, you didn't), centaur's player will have advantage.

Page is updated, now it have answers of these questions.

Thanks for suggesting crooked variant. I was thinking of it, but forgot to add it as subvariant.

P. s.: hexagonal variant is added.

Another one mad idea. I see that it have a few defects, and it may contain
other defects i didn't notice, and therefore i created subject to discuss
it. Also, i'm afraid, this game may be unplayable at all, and it's just a
funny time-waste.
Inspiration if from Charles Gilman's 3D Switchback Xiang Qi.

Consider 3x3x3x3 board.

    3--- --- ---
III 2--- --- ---
    1--- --- ---

    3--- --- ---
 II 2--- --- ---
    1--- --- ---

    3--- --- ---
  I 2--- --- ---
    1--- --- ---
     abc abc abc
      A   B   C

Lowercase letters to mark files, Arabic numerals for ranks, upercase letters
for 'hyperfiles', Roman numerals for 'hyperranks'.

To set pieces, look at this scheme as at 2-dimensional board and set pieces
as in usual Shogi (and promotion zones are same), but rook must face rook,
not bishop. If rook will face bishop, it will be able to capture it on
first turn, and in this game rook  is weaker. However, rook still can
capture another rook (protected, of course), and other pieces can contact
with opponent on very first turns, and it's the main defect that scares
me.

If you are familar with other 4D chess varinats, you probably already
understood the way of movement of regular pieces. Here moves of piece 'x'
are marked with 'o' if orthogonal and 'd' if diagonal:

--- -d- ---
-d- dod -d-
--- -d- ---

-d- dod -d-
dod oxo dod
-d- dod -d-

--- -d- ---
-d- dod -d-
--- -d- ---

There are no triagonal and quadrogonal moves.
Question 'What are orthogonally-forward moves here?' is simple (there are
two directions, and pawn can't be dropped if same rank AND hyperrank that
contains another pawn, or simply rank, if you are watching board as
2-dimensional). Same question about diagonally-forward moves is more
complicated. Consider diagonal step as two orthogonal steps. One possible
solution is that these orthogonal steps must'nt be both sideways and
neither may be 'backward-directed':

--- -d- ---
-d- dod -d-
--- --- ---

-d- dod -d-
--- -x- ---
--- --- ---

--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---

Another solution is that at least one of these orthogonal steps must be
'forward-directed', it gives two more possible moves:

--- -d- ---
-d- dod -d-
--- -d- ---

-d- dod -d-
--- -x- ---
--- --- ---

--- -d- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---

In either case, silver general have more moves than gold general, and thus
there is no point of promoting silver to gold. Perhaps, thier places in
promotion hierarchy should be be swapped, and pawns, lances and horses
should promote to silver as well.

Horse's leaps are any two steps forward+any one step sideways:

--- --- ---
--- --- ---
-h- h-h -h-

--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---

-h- h-h -h-
--- --- ---
--- -x- ---

Note that there are not only cells, where it can't move, but also cells,
where it will be able to make only one leap further. And these are the
whole second hyperrank.

Another serious problem is too mobile king. Perhaps, it should be able to
move only orthogonally. Or, maybe, replacing kings with two Shogi emperors,
that are able to leap to any cells (but in practice, only to cells,
protected by friendly pieces) will also help?

Another, probably, the most efficient way out is to play it as 'Walkers
and Jumpers': some pieces treats board as 2-dimensional. In this case,
kings, rooks and bishops (thus, no need for mirror symmetry). Probably,
pawns, knights and lances are best as being both 'Walkers' and
'Jumpers'.

When i came to this website to play Makruk once again, i saw a new game here - Asean Chess:
http://eng.thaibg.com/ACOnline/
What is this? It's pawns are set as in Makruk, but king faces another king, not queen. Set is stylized as in European chess. But what about it's rules? Are they known elsewhere aside from ThaiBG?

One idea of chess with incomplete inforation just came in my mind. I think,
it must be discussed, and i must find out if something alike has already
been invented.
As in Kriegspiel, part of the board is invisible, but the only part, wich
is behind "walls" - special objects between squares. Square can be seen
if straight line between it's center and center of any square with frindly
piece don't cross such wall.
Probably, such variant must have big board and setup phase. And it may have
non-capturing pieces, that acts as walls, that would be located along the
borders of it's square. For sake of realism, these pieces are better not
being able to move themselfs, but being somehow pushed by other pieces, and
they must be "blind" (squares, that would be seen if it where usual
piece, are still hidden).
Walls are not obstackles for knights, walls simply blocks orthogonal moves,
and diagonal moves can be blocked with two perpendicular walls. These rules
must be more specified if game have riders or hoppers, but there are two
ways to avoid these these complicacies: no walls between squares, all walls
are unmovable just pieces; second way is variant, where walls don't affect
movement at all, they only makes part of the board invisible.
Another one variant - play without special walls or "wall pieces", but
all usual pieces acts as these "wall pieces". That is, if standart chess
is played with this rules, only opponent's pawns are seen from starting
position. Probably, it's interesting to use this rule for multiplayer
variants.

Suggestion, that may be difficult to execute, but still, i'll leave it.
"Unusual shape" category should be devided into two subcategories: variants with none-rectangular cells (triangular, pentagonal, etc.) and variants with unusual connection and/or arrangement of rectangular cells (like cylindrical; well, maybe, not only rectangular - e. g. cylinrical hexagonal chess will belong to both categories).
One aspect - for new people at chess variants, who are only getting familiarized with CVs, these categories are probably more comfortable to be in one category, but for these, who already got plunged into world of CVs, this division will be helpfull for searching chess variants.

1. I bet, the game's goal is to put all your pieces in a row (wich logically comes from the game's name)?

2. If two pieces are captured, is dropping the only legal move, or rule that at least three pieces must be dropped appliles only for initial placement?

http://i.imgur.com/lDJYHEy.jpg?1
It's not Raumschach on this picture. :D
Of course, if it's not supposed to be 8x8x8 array Maack first experimented with.

Sorry for a bit vulgar internet-humour, but the thing i like about this
picture is that it represents chess variant in some sense, though it's
author most probably don't realize it. =)
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8614/4427.jpg

Some time ago (about week or more, i don't remember) i posted a new game. A few days later MacDuff's last games were published, but my one were not. Why so long?

What an interesting observation i did not notice before, though i like
AltOrth chess and other twists with shape. It seems to me as being able to
open more paths of making curious chess interpretations.
The first idea that came in my head is to make a variant wich is
intermediate between Glinski and AltOrth hexchess - in same way as Betza's
Rectahex chess is intermediate between FIDE chess and my "Octagonal"
chess (hex of hex!)... But then i realized that such game would be
asymmetrical and ambiguous, just after noticing that difference between
numbers of directions of rook and forerook is odd.

I'll try it later.
(Posting here to not lose this subject.)

I think it need option to watch, who has faved certain game.
It's not hidden information - you can watch favourites on users' pages, but quickly watching, who has faved certain game, may also be interesting.

Yeah, 84 space contest was great. I've faved one game, wich is not it's participant, but variant of participant.

Conceive game with third player. His set is not located symmetrical to
other players (e.g., in center of board), and his army is wittingly weak.
He can capture pieces of both sides, and both sides can capture his
pieces.
Will this game be played ok, if this player have no certain goal at all,
but simply think that he must survive as long as possible, and capture as
many pieces as can?
Motivation question is more clear if main players have some purpose to
capture his pieces, like shogi-style drops.
This player also could have some goal, but achieving it should be unlikely
(only if third player plays really good or first two players plays really
bad) - because it's a game of first two players, and the third one is
additional obstacle, and his victory is special outcome, like draw.
Another variant - there are two additional players rather than one, with
equal armies, and their game is independent from game of first two players,
but they obstruct each other for some reason.

I've read it on the internet. It had interesting observations.
Here are a few notes for discussion.

It is said that 3 pieces (per side) was removed from earlier version of standart Shogi (their movement was not described). One of them is named elephant, and it's definitely the Drunk Elephant, all we know.
Two other pieces are leopards. I did not hear about them before. What are they? Could it be the Ferocious Leopard (猛豹, mōhyō) from larger Shogi variants?

Second, in the preface, added in later edition, it's said that Semedo is not name of the game, but the name of Portuguese missionary, who has described it. No further information about it. It's only said that Kisljuk was not able to find information about in any Chinese sources. Probably, Thomas Hyde's "Mandragorias, seu Historia Shahiludii" is the only available source, and exact rules and origins of this game will never be known. It could be played in a very small region of China.
There is some hope if somebody will find out, wich regions was visited by this missionary, visit these regions, and find this game if it's still played or described in some archieves (big chances that it's completely forgot). But these are probably too big efforts for finding game, wich is, most likely, a merely miniaturized version of Xiang-Qi, designed for casual playing.
Still, it have cultural significance, being, as far as i know, the only miniature chess variant, invented earlier than XIX century.
If there is description of normal Xiang-Qi in "Mandragorias", one can compare it with description of this misterious game, and it (unlikely) could give some clarity.
There may be another key - that it's played on squares rather than intersections. Like Ban-Qi - none-chess game, played with Xiang-Qi equipment and Jungle game with same hierarchy system (though Semedo's game recembles Xiang-Qi much more).

There is no description of the large Korean chess variant, expect mentoiding it's size and similarities with Dai-Shogi. But certainly there is some more information somewhere in sources, used by Kisljuk.
I hope, somebody knows something about it.

Mentoided recently patented large Xinag-Qi variant is, most probably, Wuji chess. It have different number of columns, but it could be mistake. This book have several mistakes (some are fixed preface of later edition). Some mistakes may be copied from sources (Chu Shogi Lion is described with same mistakes as in Murray's History of Chess).

Still, Falcon have some moves, this pieces can't fulfil. If one of
adjecent squares is occuppied, this pieces loses 2 destination squares,
while Falcon is still able to move anywhere he can with free paths.

A little behindhand addition to the discussion of the headuarters capturing capabilities.
Joe Joyce made quite logical assumption that headquarters was able to capture. But there is a following question: what are it's capturing limitations?
I also heard opinion that headquarters was not able to capture, because in this case it's supposed that it can capture any piece, but Yurgelevich tried to make this game as realistic as possible for chess-like game, and commander can't be "Rambo with bazooka".
My own assumption: headquarters can capture with same limitations as infantry (can't capture the tank). But in this case another question follows: does it capture only in same directions as soldiers, and can it make double move on white squares?
Since rule about double step is said only about infantry, while about headquarters it's only said that it can move as king, it's logical that it can move as king only. But on the other hand - double step rule probably implied that some places in real live (especially in war conditions) have more practicable paths or better transport connection than the others. So, why headquarters can't use same ways, if this game is that realistic?

Have anybody ever noticed that cannon (in some sense) is also some kind of
piece, wich starts move as one, and continues as another?
True rider of grasshoper's move would make several hops over several
pieces in same direction, while cannon starts as grasshoper (orthogonal, in
case of cassic cannon) and continue as rook.

A question occured to me.
Methods of capturing are taken from non-chess board games.
Everybody know the family of games, overtaking from is.
Custodianship is from Tafl games, probably also well-known.
Withdrawing, if i did not confuse anything, is also from some checker-like board game (i don't remember it's name, region and time of playing).
But what about coordinating? Is it also from certain board game or invented by Abbott himself? And, maybe, immobilizing is also refrence to certain game?

I feel now a little ashamed. I was aware of game with alike idea, invented 60 years ago by classical variantist Parton, but for some reason forgot about it while thinking about this game. And even if i would not be aware of it, i should suppose that game with such idea already exist for a long time.

Anyway, maybe, there are still some points in my proposal. Rules are a slightly different, and, probably, there is some interest in adopting it to Shogi.

I was thinking of something alike, while trying to figure out (not quite
succesful), how septagonal chess would look like. Game with progressive (or
wavy) number of cells per rank. Perhaps, even with cells, being
orthogonally-adjecent to three cells on next rank. While these three cells
could be orthogonally-adjecent to three further cells each (three different
for each (9), or external ones being shared by adjecent (7)), and so on.

Name? Progressively-shrinking pentagons, perhaps?

There are several chess variants on 16x8 board with double set of pieces
per player, or 4 players, with teammate sitting adjecent. Or 15x8, with
only one rook in the central column.
Now it occured to me, that if this principle will be adopted to Shogi, game
can be cut-throat, or with teammate (or second half of own set) being
diagonally away from you.
Bishops and rooks can be arranged in one of two ways:

-R-----B--b-----r-

-r-----b--B-----R-

In this case second-rank pieces faces pieces of same kind, not as in
standart Shogi.
Second way:

-R-----B--r-----b-

-b-----r--B-----R-

Here rook can capture bishop on first move, but it's protected by silver
general and rook.

Second way is a little uneven, but if board will be
cylindrical...

There is a problem of physical representation. Because of drops, any piece
can belong to any player, but they should have different defination of
"forward", and, if game is four-player, it should be clear, who control
them.
The simpliest solution is to point certain pieces left and right. But it's
somewhat unaesthetic...
But why not use this rule? (Not for cut-throat game.) Defination of
"forward" (and promotion zone) depends on board half. That is, on files
10-18 friendly pieces moves as opponent's pieces on files 1-9.

And another idea for Xiang-Qi (it can be adopted to FIDE chess and Shogi as
well, but have some special taste with Xiang-Qi)...
17x10 double board, with four palaces, and only one rook in central file.
Diagonally-away palace is friendly, but orthogonally-away ones are
hostile... How?
As in Icehouse chess, piece can change owner, depending on position. If on
files 1-8 it's friendly, on files 10-17 it's hostile, and vice versa.
Pieces on central file are neutral. They may be moved by either player, and
may capture only piece of opposite color (the ones, that originally starts
beyond the river).
Bare facing rule applies to horizontal directions as well as for vertical.
Note that if several royal pieces are interpreted as "checkmate either",
it's impossible to do it simply by forking.
Cannon can capture another cannon on first move, but it will be controled
by opponent therafter, so it's a bad move.

I really want to try one of these games. Anyone else wish?
Some rules must be clarified, tell me your oppinion about them if you wish
to play.

In my opinion, for better visualization for western begginers, rather than traditional black-and-white checkering, board need special marking for squares, accesible by elephants. And different marking for advisors. And advisors should not resemble queens (unless if player, being new at Xiang-Qi, is not new at Shatranj).

Of course, it is not needed if one already visualize it well. My own prefrence is traditional board.

I love such minimalistic games, but don't first player have too big advantage?

What the...?
Once game began, it's specific set changed into abstract:
http://screeny.ru/52e7783a2d623e0c2f000391
It have no pieces for all pairs of letters (for loaded catapults), and game can't be played with it.

I'm sorry, but what took so long to publish the page, i created on
2014-01-21? Two weekends have passed since when.

Like this piece, but it seems that here king should start on same square-color as opposing king (facing queen). With king, facing king, it's slightly asymmetrical.

Probably it would be nice to adopt these rules to game with mostly short-range pieces.

http://lurkmore.so/images/6/64/Chesses.jpg


http://lurkmore.so/images/1/17/48c9e59ea1e8.jpg

A. Black - perhaps, notation of only it's, e.g., low-left square, while locations of it's other squares are determined by relation to it. In case of playing at Game Courier, notation of every separate square must be written.

Thank you. (:

Yes, i know that promotion to basic pieces is usually needed to avoid stalemate, and i've seen a statement that if promotion to any double combination of three basic pieces is allowed, promotin only to compounds is enough to avoid any stalemate. Well, maybe, it's not case of this game, and i should think it out better... But i don't think so. Pieces must have some overlaping moves, so that promotion to any piece will cause stalemate in certain situation. On this board bishop have some moves, that can also be made by rook (in different paths), but not to same rank, and if to same file - it's to odd number of squares away, so it don't overlap with dababah-rider's move. Camel also is not able to move to squares, directly orthogonally or diagonally-away.

I've noticed that i never seen photos of historical sets of this game. And ancient diagramm depicts pieces by ligature inscriptions. Is this game known only from old documents, having no surviving physical sets? It would be interesting to know, how non-standart pieces and variable pawns was originally represented.

What if Shogi-like drops would be added to such game? (:

Recently i found out about traditional Korean non-chess board game Nei-pat-kono, and it's pieces seems to be similar to to cannon-pawns. Never seen mentoiding of this game in information about Rococo.

Why not 19x19 variation? For the reason that most of CV members usually spend free time at playing chess, and will tipically wish to play rather short 9x9 game? Well, more or less it's true, but why not include 19x19 board as alternative variation?

An interesting idea came in my mind... Maybe, something alike has already
existed, but i did not see such things.

Consider Rubik's Cube (preferably, of non-standart size - at least 4x4x4),
on wich each square, instead being colored in one of six colors, depicts
certain chess piece of certain side (black or white), or empty. And the
goal of this puzzle is to make a chess problem, solvable for white, on each
of six sides (positions of different sides don't interact, and each side
is a separate board). Of course, each side must contain one black king and
one white king. Thereafter, on the same cube, player can try to reach
opposite goal - make six problems, solvable for black.

As variation, it's not necessary to make the cube's square corresponding
to chess playing space. Instead, it can can correspond to 2x2 area. In this
case, standart 3x3x3 size is enough, as it makes 6x6 boards on each side.

Alike game exists for a long a time, but in it's case the powerful piece is not royal and don't have diagonal moves (diagonal protective pieces and pawns are left separate):
http://www.chessvariants.org/xiangqivariants.dir/yitong.html

Funny that I posted another crossover of Chess and Tafl games at the same time, yet with different aspects of Tafl games (method of capturing and winning conditions, while this uses their's idea of starting position). :)

Firstly - can't you make diagramm of starting postion? This description sounds quite uncertain.

And a question - have commanders symbolic meaning to be associated with corresponding parts of Ireland? As far as I know, north Ireland is associated with royality and knighthood, west Ireland is associated with druids, east is low-classes - peasantry and marchantry, and the south one is associated with more "magic" low-classes - as swineherds, jesters, etc.
Sorry if I said something wrong, I don't have deep knowledge in it.

A nice way to play 3-player game on rectangular board (a bit artifical, but still; I mean, artifical as invented to play on rectangular board, while as itself, topologically, it's quite natural).
Also there is a good unusual choice of pieces, interesting special for this board.
And a cube rule have special feeling at 3-player game.

"This draught, with promotion, is taken from the version of draughts I grew up with; I am aware that it is different from the better known one played hereabouts" - interestingly, where are you from?

Shogi-style drops are nice way to make Maharajah-like games more balanced. And in Shogi initial position this kind of Maharajah have chance to capture unprotected pawn.
And I think it would be fair rule, so if Shogun will manage to have roughly same power as opponent (perhaps, there is needed some certain system of piece values to count), he will demote do normal King.

May I ask you to specify the problems about these variants? For now, I'll
abstain from talking about eight of these, but I will approve replacement
for Dababah-Qi if it would change board, opening position and palace, and
not set of pieces, because I like how it adopts Xiang-Qi, but board could
be better.

Even more trivial, but:

General prohibition of dropping in cartain board positions, even in these,
to/from which it could normally move;

Attacking any opposing piece, not only the King.