Ratings & Comments

Another suggestion I would make is Baroness. It has the B for Bishop, the N for Knight, and while it lacks a K, it is a royal title, and it has an R for roi, the French name for the King.

I'd note High Priestess is used for a different piece type than BNW, in a number of CVs invented years ago by Joe Joyce that are still played on Game Courier now and then.

For BNW some years ago I thought up 'Freemason' (made it to wiki on Fairy Pieces, somehow). Historically the name could arguably be extended back to masonry. Freemasonry also includes a religious element to it, a Google search revealed. Main reason I picked the name was that it begins with 'F', which no other piece type in my Sac Chess CV started with. [edit: I picked 'Ship' for RNF since RF I called Sailor, and I'd use 'H' as its initial]. However a drawback is that Ship is used for many piece types/CVs, I later learned.

Somewhere in CVP's Man and Beast piece articles Charles Gilman long ago offered different names for BNW and RNF types than any mentioned in this thread. I like the name that Very Heavy Chess uses for RNF.

There are a few problems with the name Popess:

1. Unless you're counting Pope Joan, there has been no such thing.
2. Presumably, there would be only one Popess if there were one, because it would be a female Pope, but your game gives each player two of them.
3. The word derives from a word meaning father. Presumably, the word for a female equivalent of a Pope should derive from a word for mother.

Here are some possible alternatives:

• Mother Superior - the highest rank reached by nuns in the Catholic Church.
• High Priestess - a common term for a high ranking female cleric, and it is used in the major arcana of the Tarot.
• Bokononess - a made-up word formed from the name of a fictional religion portrayed in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle.

I am very impressed, the changed look in Game Courier is a real enrichment. I am sure that many things can be better represented on this basis. I hope that I am not going too far out on a limb when I say that a variant such as Avatar Chess can be better conveyed. A very interesting upgrade.

I have been working behind the scenes to get Game Courier and the drawdiagram.php script to display images better. They can now recolor loaded images for the grid shape, and they can display coordinates above selected boards, which is important for Chess66, because it helps dispell the illusion that a vertical line of movement begins and ends in the same file. Here is the closest it can now come to the diagram that appears in the article. I suppose I should work on options to recolor the pieces, since what I'm doing for this diagram is using a piece set with four colors of pieces and using different labels for all of the Red pieces.

Here's are some guidelines to use in revising your description of the game.

1. The rules should be made entirely clear in the written text. Illustrations should be used to illustrate what the text has already said, not to provide additional information that is not written down.

2. The text should describe not only what can be done but how to do it.

From the questions and expressions of confusion you got regarding what the rules are, it should be evident that you have not described them clearly enough. Also, you seemed to change your mind about some details in the comments. So, you should rewrite your rules to reflect anything you have changed your mind on and to supply the details that someone would currently have to read the comments to find out about.

"...once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly."

With respect for the great job you are doing, but I can't accept that I haven't set the rules and described them clearly. You can have different perspectives, for example regarding the functionality of the switches. It is also possible to designate parts of it as non-essential. But it is not decisive what can be programmed with the available possibilities. It's a question whether the game can be played with my rules and that the rules are consistent. I had to move concerning the access to the switches because my rules weren't clear. That's it from my point of view. Had to be said. :)

I'm excited to see what happens with my other variants (Chees 69, an addition to Chess 66 and Avatar Chess).

the main feature of a switch that I'll retain is that spaces in the switch share some routes to and away from them, and movement from the narrow end can go in either of two different directions."

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that.

I mean I am retaining the geometrical properties of the switches, but I am discarding the other rules regarding them.

Does that mean my variant is history? Or have I misunderstood something?

No, it means I am working on my own variant instead of putting pressure on you to change yours. You're free to go with the rules you want for your game. I'll see what I can do about programming it once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly.