Rated Comments for a Single Item

I think this is a great idea! As it turns out, I independently came up with my own opening setup with leaves no piece undefended in the opening: RQNBKABNMR (where A moves like Bishop + Knight; M moves like Rook + Knight). There are actually a number of such possible setups. <p> - Sam

A good game which I tried out with some homemade paper pieces - a worthy enhancement of classical chess.

Progression. Twenty Comments here down to only 1 the last three years. Much ado about essentially nothing for 10 years 1996-2005 within venerable behemoth CVPage for 'new' starting arrays and tweaked castling principles after early 17th-Century Carrera's Chess. Finally, the particular genre of hair-splitting, evidenced now by inactivity, is laid to rest. Thirty-odd Carrera's derivatives, including famous Bird's and Capablanca's, clump together as failed attempts. Let us end the misery putting them down for the last time. Euthenize them, if it were figuratively possible, on the supposition that an idea has life. Creative Pietro Carrera's curiosities, Centaur(BN) and Champion(RN), original for their time, contemporaneous with Shakespeare and Pocahontas, came on the heels of 'defeat' of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Foredoomed in employing overwrought, ineffectual Chess-compounds, the stream of copycats for 400 years, one and all, proved destructive of critical skills and subtle play inherent in legendary, stand-alone utility Knight. R.I.P., Centaur. Requiescat in Pace, Champion.

'':-)'' is Muller's own characteristic notation, as for example Muller's Comment 25.October.2008 at ''Zillions and GC,'' using the same '':-)'' at the end. So in the last two immediate comments. H.G. Muller is holding conversation with himself, anonymously as ''__'' and then with the user identification, following closely. That is fine. I actually also slightly prefer Threads where I name the topic and make up to all Comments, like current ''Anand_Kramnik.'' The particular style as variety keeps direction if not always depth and clarity. Now credit Grotesque's using the year 1992 Falcon-initiated form of castling two or more over. The problem of course, discussed more mid-decade, is that really all of these on 8x10 are Carrera-Capablanca randomized set-ups. Somehow for the general chess public, it would be better if all like Grotesque were under one roof, from Duniho's, Trice's, Trenholme's, to Winther's several ''Carreras'' on 8x10. Suppose for example, a string of ''Rococos'' differed only in position of Swapper, Immobilizer as to which one is oppositely-cornered, and Chameleon and Withdrawer as to which sits next to King. It is self-evident they would all still be Rococo. It is obvious point by now for regulars, but I always try scaling my Comment in context to draw more interest from casual viewers. Also relevant is thread ''FatallyFlawed M/C,'' that Marshall and Cardinal are proven subpar pieces of historical interest mainly, and active designers pretty much omit them nowadays.

I think this is not such a great game. It is flawed by having opposing Bishops along the same diagonals, which makes it too easy for the Bishops to eliminate each other early in the game. Univers Chess and Ladorean Chess also share this flaw. Besides the problem with Bishop placement, it also places the Queens and Equerries too close to common diagonals, making it too easy for them to attack each other early in the game. Univers Chess and Ladorean Chess do not share this flaw, which makes them slightly better games. Schoolbook Chess and Embassy Chess share none of these flaws. Between these two, Schoolbook Chess seems to me to be the better game.