Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This game looks to be very strategic; I would venture to say that this game
has about the same strategy/tactics balance as FIDE Chess, while being
richer in both aspects.  The main disadvantage appears to be that this
variant will probably result in longer games than FIDE chess; a blitz game
is probably game/10 or game/15 instead of game/5; a tournament game would
probably take four to six hours instead of two hours.

I especially like Greg Strong's method of coming up with this opening
setup.  Perhaps a similar heuristic can be designed so that a random chess
variant makes for a playable game (the pieces are chosen randomly or
semi-randomly, then the opening setup is chosen at random until we find
one with a good balance).

I have tested this game a few times, and I can say it is as good as 
Grand-Chess, although with a different taste. Yes, the game tendence is to
moderately long games, with average of 100-120 moves to finish a good
Opulent Chess game, but it does not demerit the game, the game play is
very interesting, deep, rich and, yes, it is very strategic. I like it.

The NW piece is called a Grand Horse in Roberto Lavieri's ACHERNAR, a Brigadier in Glenn Overby's veSQuj, and a Mule in Lùotuoqí (Camel Chess). The royal pieces in Jason D. Wittman's Mad Chess move like NF (White) and NW (Black).

[EDIT 2023] Mentioned way back in 2001 by Jeff "Cavebear" Stroud (ABC Chess). Charles Daniel uses this piece in Herculean Chess (2008) and Hadean Chess (2010).

From playing this on ChessV, I have a few thoughts on strategies.

Firstly, 2 orthogonally adjacent Knights are excellent fortresses, and when combined with 1-2 Lions they can easily hide compound pieces to be brought out later for late game scenarios, where said compound will work well (especially Queens and Cardinals).

Another is that despite speed of getting around the board Wizards are weak, probably the weakest non-pawn piece, since they only have 3 (Ralph Betza ) half-knights, they are quite bad at creating mini-fortresses, and unlike Lions and Knights they are colourbound.

Opening, perhaps after e/f pawn advances, with Wizard to their c/h square is a good idea since it frees a Rook, develops your Wizard, blocks opposing Wizards and protects the opposite central pawn. Also, apparently developing minor pieces first is a good idea.

As often said, sliders are considerably more powerful on larger boards, but Knights seem as strong as / stronger than Bishops in this game.

on another note, funny notation for Wizard is LF, not CF. Funny Notation Camels are L (weirdly, since there isn't a capital C)

Here are a few more names for the same piece: Thoat (from Jetan, Edgar Rice Burroughs), Emperor (problemist's usage), and Marquis (from Scirocco, Typhoon, and Jupiter by Adrian King, also used in Töws' generic chess piece creation system, in Derzhanski's list of chess pieces, in the Sweeping Switchers by myself, and in Thronschach by Glenn Overby II)

Some pretty strong and interesting pieces in this variant, which helps on its large board.

edit: Here's 2 large CVs that also use wizards:

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

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/wide-soho-chess

@ Greg:

1) Now that the setup for Opulent Chess has been changed from the original, are there definite plans to change the preset to match the new setup anytime soon?

2) On the piece values offered, the one for the Archbishop being 7.5 (and Q=10) stands out. Does the table of values entirely concur with what Betza himself might have calculated for the piece values of Opulent Chess, for on 10x10, with the given armies in the setup?

Yes, I will be updating the GC presets.  I just want to modify them to use the new fairychess include file while I'm at it and did not get that finished last weekend.  But we have a 3-day weekend coming up so it should get finished.

That table of piece values is quite old so I wouldn't put any stock in it.  Probably doesn't match at all with what I am currently using in ChessV (which gets updated more often.)  The Archbishop is too low probably because I was relying on Betza's logic which significantly undervalues it, but I would not claim that these values are what he would have calculated.  Also, the table shows the value of sliding pieces going up in the endgame, which made sense since there are less obstructions, but seems to not actually be true in most cases.  (The value of the Pawn going up is true, though.)