Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The state‐transition tables seem to me a slightly overcomplicated way of saying that pieces move one way on White squares and another on Black squares (bzw. Odd and Even ranks for the Bishop/Dragon Horse): the format allows for, and thus suggests, greater complexity than is actually involved (and yes, this is how the implementation in an ID works; that doesn't make it the simplest way for players to think about it)

The state‐transition tables seem to me a slightly overcomplicated way of saying that pieces move one way on White squares and another on Black squares ... .

What can I say?
Variants are not always easy. The basic idea is there and must be realized. You can perhaps say that the basic idea is nonsense. But I believe that it has been implemented properly. After all, it's about switching between black and white - and it seems to be possible in this way. With a little getting used to, it's not difficult.
 

I don't think there was any suggestion that the idea is no good, or the implementation was flawed. Just that the presentated explanation of it is very cumbersome.

I agree with Bn Em that it would be much better explained by not presenting this as pieces that change, but just stating that the orthodox pieces get some extra moves on some of the squares. And then show a table that mentions the extra moves for each piece, and on which squares it would get those.

Seems to be a matter of taste.
I have adjusted it and hope I am now right.

=== @Mr.H.G.Muller

       Dear respected Mr.H.G.Muller,
             Could you do me a favor by giving me a hint on the coding?

          I want to write vertical high pole  as:   rfF  rfN  rfC  rfFX .    
       I come across problems writing the next higher piece on the vertical pole.      Is it possible that you might give me some hint?
 Thanks a lot. I appreciate your aid.

sincerely, Adella.

rfNX rfCX rfFXX rfNXX ...

@Mr. H.G.Muller,

   Thanks very much.  my gratitude for your  brilliant reply. 

sincerely, Adella

If the knight changes from white to black

This makes it sound as if pieces can switch side (which, without the Conquer rule, isn't possible here); really you'd have to explicit that it's moving from a white square to a black one, or v.v.

But even so, I think it'd be clearer still to simply say something to the effect of “If the knight is on a white square, it moves as in standard chess; from a black square, it moves as a chancellor”. I.e. phrasing it as a single piece that moves differently depending on its starting square rather than two pieces that change from one to the other. For comparison (though the double images may be a touch overkill)

Also incidentally, it seems oddly inconsistent to me to describe the Dragon Horse move as part of the description of the (morphing) Bishop, but to leave the descriptions of all other unorthodox move options to the end, apart from their relevant pieces

If the knight changes from white to black

This makes it sound as if pieces can switch side (which, without the Conquer rule, isn't possible here); really you'd have to explicit that it's moving from a white square to a black one, or v.v.

To avoid possible but not very likely misunderstandings, I now consistently use 'white square to black square' (and v.v.) instead of 'white to black'.

As for the bishop: I also wanted to let it morph; since it moves on the same color squares, I chose to differentiate between even and odd ranks. This opens up the possibility of changing the color diagonal via the dragon horse.

To prevent such misunderstandings one usually refers to the squares as light and dark, and the pieces as white and black.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. But it seems to be easily confused.

As for the bishop: I also wanted to let it morph; since it moves on the same color squares, I chose to differentiate between even and odd ranks. This opens up the possibility of changing the color diagonal via the dragon horse.

I understood that that was why it changes its move depending on rank rather than colour; but it doesn't explain why its unorthodox move is grouped differently from the others: next to that of the bishop where all the others are left until the end of the article. It's a matter of structure, not of content.

I'd still suggest it'd be clearer (for the human player) to describe the pieces as single types whose move varies by departure square than pairs of types that alternate depending on destination, but I won't insist as the description as given seems to be clear enough

Though the table diagrams still suggest more complexity than is actually there; you could profitably replace them with a two‐column table with ‘white‐square move’ and ‘black‐square move’ columns. (And in any case, now that I notice, I don't see the relevance of specifying the ‘White POV’: the same squares are black/white and even‐/odd‐ranked regardless of white of black POV)

.., but I won't insist as the description as given seems to be clear enough.

If you don't mind, I would like to leave it at that.

..; you could profitably replace them with a two‐column table with ‘white‐square move’ and ‘black‐square move’ columns.

I'll have to think about that again, because I haven't really understood it yet. A little more time would be nice.

I still think the Dragon Horse's move diagram ought to be placed analogously to the other unorthodox moves; either next to (before or after, doesn't matter) them after the pawns' description, or alternatively you could move the others next to their respective orthodox forms. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this inconsistency in the structure

In case you do change your mind about the table format (not a blocker like the previous as it's more a matter of taste), what I'd suggested is sth like this:

White sq.	Black sq.

It's more compact and still gets the point across. Though this isn't a blocker like the previous as it's more a matter of style/taste.

I have made changes and hope that it fits now.

I didn't expect a screenshot of my comment ;‌) Assuming you still prefer to chenge them, ideally either something similar in style to your existing images or outright HTML tables would be better

Also (perhaps more importantly) I'd assumed it to be implicit that the other tables would match in style ;‌) And arguably the pawn could be included in the picec table as the conditions on its morphing are the same; only the bishop strictly needs a separate table (though if you consider the pawns to be fundamentally different from other pieces I guess you wouldn't be alone). Only reason I didn't do it is because the alfaerie Diagram Designer set seems to lack the Speedpawn image.

As to the structure: the Dragon Horse diagram is next to the other unorthodox non‐pawns now, but the pawns are now awkwardly between two different kinds of non‐pawn piece and the order of exposition differs between the ‘general’ and ‘detailed’ sections

If you prefer, I can edit the page myself to show what I mean, and you can tell me if you disagree with the proposed presentation; thus might be more efficient than trying to explain verbally and would save you unnecessary busywork guessing at what I mean

You're quite right - I'm guessing at what you mean. I am therefore grateful for your offer to change the page as you mean it. Sorry you have the work now, wasn't my intention.

The editor Bn Em has revised this page.

I've restructured the page to flow more consistently: the pawns are still the last of the non‐royal pieces discussed but are now grouped with the other colour‐dependent morhpers, which means the Bishop is now described first; the unorthodox moves are now all described in a single block at the end of the page; both (down from all three) morphing tables are in the condensed form describing square‐dependent states rather than transitions.

I've left most of the other text intact (except a typo ‘Kight’ and the description of the DH's move, which is more in line with the others but feel free to adjust it if you prefer to express it differently).

Please tell me if you're happy to go with the edits I've made; if so (and subject to any other adjustments you may wish to make — e.g. to the description of the DH or if you want to have the tables as images similar in style to the ones you made previously) I'm happy to publish

I can understand the changes/restructuring you have made. I am confident that a human player will be able to cope with the current description of the game. Incidentally, I think we have already spent enough time making changes, so I kindly ask you to publish the current status. Thank you for your efforts.