Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think that promotion rule is the greatest promotion rule of all time lol. That sword you speak of doesn't worry me, that sword is always over my head anyways, if I'm playing a game or not too hehe.

Hi Christine! I strongly resent Grand Chess forbidding any position with "extra pieces" on the board - one example being eleven pieces on one side (not counting pawns). These rules make me feel like I am playing chess with Damocles and we are both sitting with swords suspended over our heads. I am not comforted by any statistics proving that a sword almost never falls - just get me another chair!

Searching ChessBase 2000 for some standard chess games with nine pieces on one side produced: Stefan Fazekas - Norman Littlewood, BCF Championship 1963. The first capture (a pawn) was on move 23. A White Pawn captured a Black Rook on move 26 and promoted to a Queen. Black quickly won the game after White played 28. Rh1 - all three Queens staying on the board until the end. Worth noting: Stockfish calculates 28. fxg4, leading to a White victory.

1. Nf3 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4 Bg4 5. e3 e5 6. Be2 Nc6 7. O-O Nge7 8. d5 Nb8 9. h3 Bd7 10. b4 O-O 11. Rb1 f5 12. c5 Bf6 13. Nd2 g5 14. e4 Be8 15. Nc4 a6 16. cxd6 cxd6 17. Be3 b5 18. Na5 Kh8 19. f3 Rg8 20. Rc1 f4 21. Bf2 Ng6 22. a4 Bd7 23. axb5 Qf8 24. b6 Qh6 25. b7 Bxh3

26. bxa8=Q Bxg2 27. Kxg2 g4 28. Rh1 gxf3+ 29. Kxf3 Nh4+ 30. Bxh4 Bxh4 31. Rxh4 Qxh4 32. Qg1 Qh3+ 0-1

I can add that, except in the late end-game, it is extremely rare you would be allowed to promote and survive. The opponent will almost always sacrifice a minor to prevent promotion or capture the resulting piece on the promotion square. So it doesn't matter very much what is available as promotion choice; you will gain a minor for a Pawn when you can force a Pawn into the promotion zone. So you don't suffer very much if a minor is the only piece available as promotion choice. It is just that the opponent gets the choice not to trade his minor for it.

So the promote-to-lost-only rule doesn't affect the game that much. The most notable effect is that in a late end-game where there still is a super-piece and an unobstructed promotion is possible, you will have to pick a different super-piece. But since there are three nearly equivalent super-pieces, each giving an advantage so large that the game ceases to be a serious contest, that doesn't make much difference.

I think the rule you can only promote to a captured piece is good actually. There are some pretty powerful pieces in this game and this rule prevents an 'overpowering' of the game.

Also, I would say it would be fairly rare to find a pawn promoting before a capture of a piece.

H.G. says 'On the other hand, one could argue that it is a nice tactical dilemma that when you are planning a promotion you should also take care something worthwhile is traded by the time you reach last rank.'

I agree, and it also can lead to interesting play because you could sacrifice a piece knowing that you have a pawn to promote after. Fun times!

I suppose that David uses the term 'early promotions' not so much to refer to promotions before the last rank is reached, but to promotion so early in the game that nothing has been captured yet. And I agree that this rule doesn't really make a more interesting game, but seems purely conceived for the convenience of playing it with woodware, without the need for extra pieces. (Which seems a bit strange, as it would still need two extra Pawns and pieces per player, presumably from a second orthodox set, which would leave plenty of spare pieces available for promotion.

On the other hand, one could argue that it is a nice tactical dilemma that when you are planning a promotion you should also take care something worthwhile is traded by the time you reach last rank. This happens so rarely, however, that it doesn't seem worth to complicate the rules for making it possible.

Note that although the orthodox game shown by David does have an early promotion, but not one where the promoted Pawn survives.

@ David

Pawn promotions before reaching the last rank can look more or less aesthetic depending on which games a person has played. I've seen comments elsewhere by chess players that they wish the board edge was 'made use of' (as though by chess 'tradition') in Grand Chess, by having promotions only there. However, anyone who's played shogi will note that in that classic game, earlier promotions than on the board edge are allowed by tradition also (the tradition evidently being that the first three ranks of an opponent are where his pieces or pawns start from in the setup, as is the case for Grand Chess).

M. Badii - J. Stranjakovitch, Paris 1989 reached the position in the diagram below after

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.f4 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 5.exf5 Bxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.fxg6 Bg7 8.gxh7+ Kf8

The game continued 9.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 10.Qe2 Bxh1 with a win by White after 24 moves.

I see no reason for rules that may prevent early pawn promotions in Grand Chess. Most of us want games that are more interesting, not less. And after all, there is no limit to the number of promoted pawns on the board in Shatranj.

[EDIT] I should have specified the rules that I was objecting to:

"5. A Pawn can promote only to a friendly piece that has been captured, and for which it is exchanged."

"6. If no friendly piece has been captured, then a Pawn may not move beyond the 9th rank."

@Daniel Lee

Hello! Is there a way for someone to add new games to that website?

You can add Pychess (https://www.pychess.org) to the list of places to play both people and AI. We have regular scheduled tournaments (including in Grand Chess) as well as a top of the line AI in Fairy Stockfish (although note that the top strength is still diluted to make processing efficient)

Ok, It is Capablanca which I remember then. Thanks!

I am not sure what exactly you are referring to. I never measured piece values explicitly for Grand Chess; I always assumed they would be equal to those of Capablanca Chess, as extra ranks behind the armies should not have much effect on game play. For Capablanca Chess the values are Q=950, C=900, A=875, R=500, B=350, B-pair bonus=50, N=300, P=100. There is a rather strong manifestation of the 'leveling effect', though: the super-pieces are effectively worth less when they face many lighter pieces. So sacrifycing one super-piece for R + minor or 3 minors ups the effective value of your remaining super-pieces compared to those of the opponent, which can give more than a Pawn in compensation (if you still have these super-pieces).

I don't seem to be able to find HG's piece values for this game. Can someone help?

I see. That is currently not possible either. It is so much like the thing I mentioned first, that it would probably be easiest to combine such features: by default have some way to paste games into the diagram, but allow a way for the diagram description to define an initial value for that input element.

I am not sure what you mean by that. You want to be able to paste the game back into the diagram, and then step through it with the navigation button?

I wasn't thinking of that, as such, though it's not a bad idea. I was thinking of including a game in the HTML used to define a diagram. This could be useful for showcasing past games.

I am not sure what you mean by that. You want to be able to paste the game back into the diagram, and then step through it with the navigation button? Currently you can only step through the game you are currently playing (even after it ended), and the memory of it is erased as soon as you start a new one. I suppose I could add some text entry in the AI bar where one could paste a game so that the JavaScript can see it. I am not sure whether it is possible to attach a handler for Ctrl-V to the page as a whole, to trigger importing it from the clipboard. In any case I would have to add a SAN parser, but that should not be too difficult.

My game against the interactive diagram. I played White and won.

1. f5 Nh7 2. Nh4 Ng5 3. e4 Cf7 4. Nc4 Rag10 5. g4 Nc7 6. Bf4 h6 7. Ng6 Nce6 8. Nge5 Nxf4 9. Cxf4 Ch8 10. h4 Nf7 11. Nxf7 gxf7 12. Cxh6 Rg7 13. Rjg1 Rg8 14. g5 Cg7 15. Cxg7 Rxg7 16. f6 Rg6 17. d4 Rjg10 18. e5 R6g8 19. Bf5 d7 20. Rg3 e6 21. fxe7 Bxe7 22. Rf1 Rg7 23. Nb6 Bxa3 24. Nxa8 Be7 25. Rgg1 R10g8 26. Ra1 Qe8 27. Nc7 Qd8 28. Ra9 Ke10 29. Rxf9 Kxf9 30. Nd5 Ba3 31. Qa2 Be7 32. Qa9 Kg10 33. Ra1 Rg9 34. Qa10 Kf9 35. Ra9 Ke8 36. Qc10 Rd9 37. Qe10 Re9 38. Rxe9 Qxe9 39. Qxc8 Bd8 40. Bxd7

Is there any way to replay past games with the interactive diagram?

I made significant updates to this page. It was at least 15 years since the last updates. I updated the graphics, updated the information about which computer play and equipment options are available, added notes about the rules - history and implication, and edited the introduction to be more current. (The previous page said "Since it's conception in 1984 it continues to grow in popularity", which may have been true at the time, but I think it is fair to say that the popularity of Grand Chess has peaked, at least for the time being.)

The old page can still be accessed here: https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/freeling_old.html

Test of interactive diagram:

In spite of what I see as the drawbacks of this variant (bishops clearly stronger than knights, marshalls able to be traded quickly if developed symmetrically, complex pawn promotion rules that I don't quite like), the game uses a square (rather than rectangular) board and there are no unprotected pawns in the setup, which are arguably improvements over Capablanca chess (although that game's setup allows for smothered and back rank mates, arguably good features to have). The fact that the rooks protect each other, so that there is no need for castling, is both a plus and a minus in my view (as is the fact the player's armies ranks have many empty squares in the setup - otherwise there could be 30 pieces per side, perhaps, as I tried in my own Sac Chess variant, which is a lot of pieces).

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=3; B=3.5; R=5.5; C=7.5; M=9.5; Q=10 and the fighting value of the K=2.5 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded). Note that I rate a N significantly lower on a 10x10 board than on a 8x8, 9x8 or 10x8 board (where I estimate N roughly=3.5 in all cases) as the many extra excellent central squares available to a N on a 10x10 board are IMHO way more than offset by the rather large size of the board, which makes it harder for a N to cross from one side of the board to the opposite one. Also note that on the four board sizes I've mentioned, I've kept R=5.5 as a constant value, changing the value of a B as I felt appropriate for a particular board size(s), in relation to the value of a R.

Here's an early CV invention of mine, a modified version of Grand Chess, which some may or may not like due to the positioning of the bishops in the setup, alone:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/chess-1010

The whole point seems moot. You don't need 3 Queens to checkmate, and using a second one against a bare King is already embarrassing. The worst case I can imagine in FIDE that has any practical interest is KQKP where you can draw with Rook or Bishop Pawn on the 7th rank when the promotion square is covered by King, and the attacking King is far away. The trick is that with a Bishop Pawn the King can step into the corner, in stead of in front of the Pawn, because when the Queen captures it it would be stalemate. And with Rook Pawns you can force the King in front of the Queen, but you cannot use that to approach with your own King, as this would be stalemate.

I think in Grand Chess KQKP with the Pawn only removed one step from promotion and the promotion square covered by its King is always draw, no matter what Pawn you have. And not because of stalemate.

Fair points, but I'm really talking about more extreme cases.

Is a stalemated king vs 3 queens a legitimate draw? I don't so.

The only counterargument to that is "gee well the other player shouldn't so sloppy as to let the king be stalemated." But to me thats a moot point. Dominant player shouldn't be obligated to give the weaker player a legal move.

> I see little justification for a weaker player that has been trapped being awarded a draw in this case.

Well, this is a bit of a moot point, as you can also not force stalemate in KBK or KNK. Only KNNK turns into a win when stalemate is a win.

> Pawn vs bare king, or piece vs piece I would still award as a draw.

That is a bit funny, because KPK is really the only 3-piece case in FIDE where altering the stalemate rule would have practical consequences. Because the only way to avoid being trapped there for the weak side is to allow promotion. But it would not affect Grand Chess, because there KPK is always won, due to promotion before the last rank.

> Imperative of movement is already central to end games, why not enforce it for moving into check and losing a game?

Note that having no moves does not imply you would have moves if you can move into check. You can be stalemated even when moving into check is allowed (but losing).

Either way I would view mandatory promotion to RBN on the 9th/8th rank an improvement.

Any game that uses the FIDE stalemate rule has something to do with stalemate.

I'm really referring to cases in which a side has no legal move while facing an army with much greater material. I see little justification for a weaker player that has been trapped being awarded a draw in this case. For me its a loophole and nothing more.

Pawn vs bare king, or piece vs piece I would still award as a draw.

Minor pieces vs king is a grey area but I think trapping the king in such cases is worthy of a win. Imperative of movement is already central to end games, why not enforce it for moving into check and losing a game?

In Elven Chess I used a similar King and Rook placement as in Grand Chess, but indeed I conidered the absence of castling a mistake. The need for it remains, and there really is no reason to abandon it. So in Elven Chess I took Capablanca-style castling (the King moving 3 squares). That means you could castle on the first move, if you wanted. (But of course you should not want that, keeping the opponent in the dark about which side your King will take residence for as long as you can.)

I believe Grand Chess was invented before the computer era, and Freeling's games are designed for over-the-board play anyway, so I think the promotion rule cannot really be held against him.

I don't consider it a weakness of orthodox Chess that KBK and KNK are draws. And this has nothing to do with stalemate anyway.

Does Freelings claim that Grand Chess is an inherent improvement of FIDE Chess stand up to scrutiny?

Removal of castling

Castling is an artificial but effective rule that serves more than one purpose-the ability to switch an immobile king to prevent lopsided enemy attacks, and increased ease of rook developement. Staggered rooks as an alternative accomplish the latter, a more centralised king on a more spacious board (mostly) negates the former.

Extension of material

The premise in conventional chess variant wisdom seems to be that the choice of the RB compound is arbitrary, and the RN/NB are the natural "missing" extensions. However the FIDE Queen is arguably the most conceptually fundamental piece in the game; its movement on an empty board can be described in 3 words; "it moves straight." The same certainly cannot be said of RN/RB.

K/B/R are restrictions, rather than fundamental building blocks. Similarly the knight is really a special case that subsets the more obscure 2-1 slider. It, and not the "mad Queen" is the true wildcard of FIDE.

Either way, the knight complements the FIDE array perfectly, and gives the ensemble a high degree of balance for such simple pieces - 8 pawns, 4 minor pieces, 2 major pieces, one 1 "master" piece, thats difficult to better, and in my opinion distributing its most obscure movement type in new combinations is not sound grounds for doing so.

In truth, the weakening of the knight move of a 10*10 board aids GC somewhat declustering the pieces and producing a clearer hierarchy, but not enough, and the final ensemble is undeniably lopsided.

I do feel that FIDE is missing a piece (and just one), but I would consider the 2-leaper (a piece so neglected among variants that it barely has a name) to be that piece. Its conceptually simple and bridges the gap between Queen and Rook almost perfectly, being in almost exactly equal power ratio to each.

Aesthetics

FIDE is played on a lower base board (2 vs 10), with perfect 50% piece density.

Pawn promotion

This is where I feel Freeling makes a real mistep. The optional promotion of the 8/9/10th rank is slack and the restriction of promotion to a captured piece is an archaic throwback to precomputerised chess. Freelings defense of the unnecessary complications that arise (pawns on the 9th ranks can give check while immobile) by pointing to the case of pinned pieces in FIDE yet giving check is at best a case of two wrongs not making a right. Why not enforce promotion to the RNB and complete the (R, N, B) power set?

Stalemate, pawn first move and en passant

The primitive stalemate rule of FIDE is left unchanged (piece vs bare king still irrationally given as a draw), and convuluted pawn behaviour is left as it was.

Conclusion

I don't doubt that GC is still an excellent game and most likely the best of its type, but its just not a game that can be considered a clear forward step from FIDE. It extends in an abritrary manner, improves in some areas, loses in others and leaves other chess conventions unchallenged.

Freeling showed an ability to distill the chess paradigm to clear endpoints in Rotary, Shakti and Chad, but ultimately GC can't be considered in that group.

HG Muller,

The KN is indeed underused, although the inclusion of such a compound then requires the RK and KB for a complete set, which no longer work as distinct unions.

One could consider the gryffon and unicorn to be RK/BK compounds, temporal rather than spatial though that may considered a stretch by some...

This is a favorite of mine for the rules and board size, more than being another Capablanca. I am making some sets to give away for Christmas. I am including extra pieces to be a variant basic kit. I will post my changes for my "Grand Chess and Beyond" on the respective pages of each game.

Jason makes some good points concerning 10x10 chess variant design. I prefer placing Cannons on the back ranks, as in Shako and Shatranj Kamil X. Now the White Rooks will either have to share the first rank with the Cannons or position themselves on the second rank.

On BrainKing, Embassy Chess which uses the same setup as Grand, is more
popular and the smaller 10x8 board seems to work better for the 2 added
super pieces. Grand Chess' main distinction is the extra row behind just
for the rooks which is probably not as interesting as the creator thinks it
is. Generally, those rooks just back up stronger pieces in front of them,
or they are exchanged with other rooks on open files.

It's more interesting in normal Chess where a rook tries to get on an open
file by clearing other pieces out of the back rank than it is like this.

In short, the freedom of the rooks and the extra space for the King to move
around lead to less tension in the game which is not a good thing. 10x8
games with those 2 pieces like Janus Chess and Embassy (Bird/Capablanca)
play better on 10x8.

Well, I don't see much reason to assume that the piece values in Grand Chess are very different from the very well established values in Capablanca and other 10x8 variants. It is true the board has two more ranks, but these are basically ranks where you don't want to go.

This would mean your values suffer from a gross uderestimation of the value of the Cardinal (BN), which in Capablanca is practically equivalent to the Marshall (RN). That there is logic in your system can be considered a drawback, as so far any logic in the practical values of pieces has been sigularly absent (or perhaps just not understood).

If I would have to guess in which direction the Capablanca values should be corrected for Grand Chess, the major factor I would take into account is the fact that the promotion zone is 3 deep, effectively cutting 1 rank off the board. This makes that you are more in a hurry with lateral movements to stop passers, which disadvantages pieces that cannot slide along ranks.

 FIDE 10x8  Grand(?)
N 325 300 -> 275
B 325 350 -> 325 (+50 B-pair bonus)
R 500 500
C     875 -> 850
M     900
Q 950 950

I've been dabbling with Grand Chess for a few years, and offer my analysis
of the piece values 'the way I see it':

P -- 1
N -- 3
B -- 4 -- I add 1 to each vector piece given the longer vectors on 10x10
R -- 6
C -- 8 -- I also add 1 for the combined power effect, like Q = R + B + 1 in
classic chess
M -- 10
Q -- 11

I've used these values for every game of GC that I've ever played, and
they've never failed me yet when calculating exchanges.

The method is consistent and logical -- for example, the Marshal is 10
because M = (R + 1) + N + 1.  (1 is added to the R for the longer vectors
and another 1 is also added for the combined power effect.)

T.

- Sam

Perhaps you can make a link on it and we do one on your site.

Christian Freeling's game is potentially excellent, but I feel it would benefit from two tweaks:

1) The initial array for the white major pieces should be Cardinal-D2, Queen-E2, King-F2, and Marshall-G2. (Of course the black pieces should be rearranged accordingly.) This setup does have the potential disadvantage of having the KBP on both sides initially unguarded, but the capture of either pawn would take several tempi and might lead to some interesting gambit play.

2) The king should be allowed a once-a-game safety leap of three squares either to the right or left. this would be in essence castling without the rook and would be subject to the same rules as castling, i.e. no prior king move and no moving over squares attacked by the enemy.

In any event the foremost requirement of viability for any chess variant is that the winning percentage for white be no higher than that experienced in ordinary chess.

Let's at least pretend you are talking mechanically. Betza argues that on an 8 x 8 board, RN is equivalent to RB such that one could replace the one with the other to create equivalent armies, as he does in Sort of Almost Chess where he even says the following: 'Both kinds of Queen have exactly the same strength, so it is an even game, even for masters.' But I suppose on larger boards, the queen becomes more powerful, just as the bishop becomes more powerful than the knight. What sort of added powers would one have to give to the RN to allow it to keep up with the queen as the board gets larger?

What would one have to add to a BN to make it equivalent to a queen? I'd like to know about different possibilities. One possibility is to make the knight a nightrider. I created this variant to explore this, but one also explores it in Lions and Unicorns and Pocket Mutation Chess, two inspirations for me in creating the former practice variant.

After posting my previous comment on Grand Chess, I received an email from Michael Howe [Nova Chess and others], who has been working on the pawn promotion/movement problem in his work. With permission, I present the relevant body of the text: 
[A pawn] 'can move to the back rank even when no previously captured piece is available, and while there it moves like a nonroyal king (commoner).  If it moves out of the promotion zone it reverts to pawn.  If it moves within the promotion zone it gets another chance to promote.  A player can also move into or within the promotion zone and choose the commoner option instead of a piece promotion even if a piece is available: for example, in a situation when a commoner would mate but a cardinal or marshal would not.  No in-situ promotion.  I think this works better than a sideways-moving pawn because it is more threatening, although I doubt that this situation will come up much'.

As I use the scheme I proposed in both Grand Shatranj and Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, I am adding this option to both games.

The editors received the following message by e-mail from Namig Aliyev:

Dear sir!
I would like send to You some comments about Grand Chess.
 
1.'Fool mat' in classic chess is 
1.f4 -e6
2.g4 -Qh4x -2 moves
 
2.In Capablanca chess for opening set up like this (Optimal set up,all
pawns protekted,force line of pieces very good
balanced)-R-N-B-A-C-K-Q-B-N-R, 'fool mat' is
1.c3 -h5
2.Ac2 -f6
3.Ag6x -3 moves
 
3.In Grand Chess for opening set up -3rd row pawns,2nd row from square b2
-N-B-A-C-K-Q-B-N, 1st row Ra1 and Rj1 (this variant more
preferable,because white king snand up in dark square and vice versa)
'fool mat 'is 
1.c4 -Rjg10
2.Ac3 -Rae10
3.Cf4 -Af10
4.Nh4 -h7
5.Ag7x -5 moves
 These examples shows us in Grand Chess a king is more safety position
then in Capablanca or Classic Chess.
 
P.S.I think all rules in Grand Chess is very interesting and good. But if
we make one exceptoin it will be better.
Rule:A pawn can be promoted when it reaches 9th row. The promotion is
optional on these rows.
In this case I think many chess fun and players will be joined to this
beatiful game.
With best regards, FIDE Master,FIDE Trainer Namik

I've suggested in the forum that the Games Courier might implement a 'The
World Against ...' system, whereby a champion at some variant would play
White and everyone else plays Black. 'The World' can use a public forum
to discus possible lines of play and could vote (in a strict time-span) on
which move to make. 

Grand Chess would be a good game to investigate this way, because
Mindsports Arena has held tournaments some years back, so it has
recognized champions: Wayne Schmittberger and John Vehre. Either 'The
World Against Vehre' or 'The World Against Schmittberger' would be
great fun, I think, if either party could be enlisted for it.

Grand Chess design analysis:
# squares: 100
# piece types: 8
Piece-type density: 8%
Est. piece values: P1, K2, N3, B3, R5, C8, M9, Q10
Initial piece density: 40%
Long diagonal: a1-j10
Power density: 1.22
Exchange gradient: 0.450; (1-G) = 0.550
Ave. game length:  M =  3.5*100*0.08/1.22*0.55 = 42 Moves
Features:  All the B-N-R two-fold compounds appear
Comments: Great exchange potential and relatively few types of pieces
keep
a decimal variant under 45-move average.

I guess I should have looked at this sooner since there were two quick
follow up comments.  For Mark the King's leap is in fact a one time
option like Castling and subject to similar restrictions.  You can not
leap out of check nor can the king cross any squares attacked by enemy
pieces.  My interpretation of the leap has been to used it to simply make
a jump left or right along the 2nd rank. My suggested array would be in
fact RCNBQKBNMR with the rooks still being on the 1st rank and the rest on
the 2nd rank as in standard Grand Chess.  The advantage of the new array
is the minor pieces are more centrally located and can better attack the
center.  The Marshall and Cardinal are decentralized but they can more
easily get into the fight again than the bishop and particularly the
knight can in the standard array for Grand Chess.
   For Ed my email is now [email protected], and I will see if I can drop
you an email again.  Gothic Chess is also very interesting and the Duniho
option is worth exploring here as well, and can be played with the
Zillions Engine for those interested.

John Vehre? Where did you disappear to? Waaaaaaay back when we were playing
a friendly Gothic Chess match via email, you had me on the ropes, then one
fine day your email bounced!

I am at [email protected] now, FYI. Hope to chat with you later.

--Ed

I have played in two Grand Chess competitions and can highly recommend
both the game and the organizers at mindsports.net who now have held three
cyber world championship events.  Grand Chess combines good ideas from
both east and west.  It is fast paced like classical chess and the long
range pieces have considerable striking power. The promotion rules and set
up remind one more of Shogi and these same promotion rules tend to reduce
the number of draws.  If you could reach such an endgame almost all basic
pawn up king and pawn vs. king endgames are wins unless the weaker side
can capture the pawn and even the notoriously tough Rook and pawn endings 
should also be easier for the stronger side. Of course saving a bad
position is much tougher!
   Classical chess playing skills also translate well in this variant and
a good chess player most likely also will quickly become a good Grand
Chess player. The mindsports site provides boards to play the game with on
their server and postal chess players tired of computer interference in
their games ought to give this variant serious consideration.
    The only criticism I have of the game is that perhaps a piece
arrangement more like Duninho's (spelling?) variation of Capablanca's
Chess
with the Cardinal on b2, the minor pieces Queen and King moved in towards
the center and with the Marshall placed on i2 might be a more efficient
piece arrangement.  I have also experimented at the Dayton Ohio Chess Club
with some friends with adding a king's leap of three squares which seems
to work well with this alternate piece arrangement.  Maybe an addition
that might be considered for the Zillions engine?