Single Comment

Although this variant has some very nice aspects, I believe it also has a
great number of flaws.

Positive:
-Total symmetry which leads to balance between white and black
-Unusual Setup of pawns in which all are protected exactly once by a
major
piece.
-Barrier Pawn makes centre harder to control

Negative:
-I concur with Charles Gilman's comments that adding non-capturing moves
to bishops is a very untidy way to unbind them.  If those moves were
capturing, as J'org Knappen first thought, then it would be much less
'fiddly' and more interesting, being similar to Dragonhorses in Shogi.

-The Addition of Knight-moves to the rooks.  First of all, there is
already enough power added by the dual-queens.  Secondly, I just prefer
to
have normal rooks, and I don't see how adding the knight-moves help
'restructure' chess.  If anything, they seem to unbalance the game.
  
-Knights made almost completely useless.  First of all, as there are
knight-moves in the rooks, the knights become less useful later on, and
with more mobile bishops, knights become a lot weaker than bishops.  I
don't see why this has been done. 

But most of all:
-Development too hard for the 'weakest' piece, the knights, and too
easy
for all the other pieces!  In fact, the diagonally-moving pieces are
already attacking lots of squares before they move!  And the Rooks can
get
out really easily if needed.  But not the Knight, which has its logical
development blocked by a pawn!  Surely the point of weaker pieces (at
least in FIDE Chess) is to go out early, then let the big pieces come
later.  Seeing this is trying to 'restructure' chess, it should try to
at least play similarly.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh.  However, a bit of restructuring THIS
variant could lead to a very interesting game.