Single Comment

Here is my spin on this:
1. I also, in 2007 (unaware of this game) happened to wonder how to do
Capablanca pieces on an 8x8.  End result was IAGO Standard Fantasy Chess
(Capablanca 64) in its bunch of mutations, which can be found on the
Zillions site (Seirawan's version isn't in it).  It was different than
this.  I believe the best shot to get Capablanca pieces adopted is with
an
8x8 board.  I played with this concept years ago with my Corner Chess
game
also (meant to be 4 player chess on an 8x8 board)
2. I would propose that the name Sharper Chess be adopted in honor of the
fact that Harper worked on it (S from Seirawan and the rest is Harper). 
It also sounds pretty cool as a name.
3. Here is how you settle the name controversy (people who don't want to
lose the names Chancellor and Archbishop).  The top two pieces in fantasy
chess are the Chancellor and Archbishop.  I know Seirawan wanted
different, because he felt the other ones didn't make sense.  Well, I
say
you can go with BOTH actually.  If the pieces start on the board, they
are
Chancellor and Archbishop (or Cardinal).  If they start in a POCKET
position, then they would be Hawk and Elephant.  I don't see it as a big
deal.  This way, you also know if the Capablanca pieces have entered the
game or not.
4. For people arguing about this and that, and disappointed (want to have
them enter different spot, have different board, and other complaints on
here), please view this variant as being a METHOD to get new pieces into
the game.  This game is a near ideal GATEWAY to get new pieces into chess
in an acceptable manner.  Viewed in light of this, it is a good thing. 
Work with this, and then add your own tweaks.  Want to have the Amazon
get
accepted into chess?  Well, have it as a possible other piece in Seirawan
chess.
a. People who don't think it is radical enough, can we keep in mind, we
need the FIDE crowd to adopt it to some degree for there to be enough
players?
b. People who feel it wrecks one line of play or another, and believe
bishops will die too early (thus propose that if you move a bishop, you
can't enter in the Capablanca pieces), can we play with this a bit more
and see if we can keep the simplicity of what is propose, and make it
lead
to MORE options on play, rather than less?  Also, if makes the game a LOT
more open, with new lines of development, why wouldn't that be
acceptable?
5. I believe an easy variant on this would be you leave the queen space
blank and then players alternate turns each placing a queen,
elephant/chancellor, or hawk/archbishop in the initially left empty queen
space.
6. This variant can work with Chess960 as a variation of Capablanca
Random
Chess, and make it easier to accept.  Also, it can work with Bughouse.
7. This version allows for Capablanca pieces to get into chess, without
having to deal with the headaches of Gothic Chess.
8. The underlying methodology of introducing pieces here can be used with
other chess-like games.  Consider Shogi with this, for example.  You
could
even go with the OLD version of Shogi without the rook and bishop on the
board, and the pieces in the last two rows, and have them come into the
game via the method in this game.  Chinese Chess would be another.
9. Anyone want to calculate how many different ways that new ways the two
new pieces can enter the game?