I deleted turning rule of the Raven

Edited. Including some rules (i. e. no restriction to turn the Raven in first 5 moves, I deleted this) So interested people can read and play this offline, not only online.

I am not in favor of publishing this, at least as it is now. Some problems I have with this page:

1. The writing is very bad. English may not be your primary language, and I am willing to fix these things, but I only spend the time if I think the game is worthwhile. To me, this game just looks like a random collection of ideas.

2. A game can have a theme to give it character, but please keep that to the introduction and/or notes. Putting information in each piece description about whether it is a person, or a statue, or was a statue ... this makes a reader think that this information is relevant to the game when it is not (as far as I can tell).

3. The Raven is not well-enough defined and the move is too complicated anyway. Things like "can only do this once in 5 moves unless something else in which case every 3 moves" is much too complicated and basically guarantees the game cannot be played. No program supports this and even players over a board are not likely to remember exactly how many moves it has been since something happened. Pieces that rotate are already rare, and most programs don't support, but they are still usable and can be played. The additional only-every-X-moves restriction is too much and makes the game almost unplayable. (And, is it important? Is rotating a Raven really so powerful that it must be limited?)

Well, your images were still insanely large. I edited the article a bit to show them at a size that is more in line with what we have on other pages. For some that meant I had to shrink them by a factor four!

It is still not clear to me how turning of the Raven works. You say once in N moves. But are these moves of the Raven, or moves of the player to which the Raven belongs?

If they were moves of the Raven, I could implement it for the purpose of an Interactive Diagram as (hidden) promotions: there would be a number of different Ravens, one that can turn, another (Raven1) that cannot turn, but automatically promotes to Raven whenever it moves, a Raven2 that promotes to Raven1 on every move, etc. And then when the Raven turns, demote it to the Raven that still has to promote N times.

Edited. Can you publish it please?

Thx, but about moving of previous version of Ox, it’s just historic note.

If you want to make historic notes about Horizons, the Horizon article would be the place to do it. Not the article about another Chess variant. People intersted in Horizons might never look here, people interested in Stone Garden Chess might not be interested in Horizons, let alone in its history.

Thx, but about moving of previous version of Ox, it’s just historic note.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

OK, I fixed that now.

I flipped the Ox image in Horizons, because it looked too much like the Knight image in the way you had drawn it. I think piece images should be quite different even when looked at in low resolution. If I would flip the Ox here, it would become too similar to Index. Of course I could flip them both. But I don't think it is a problem that the Ox in Horizons and Stone Garden Chess look the same, although they move differently. They are also called the same, and this is actually more confusing than that the image is the same. People would not easily remember in which direction the Ox looked in another game, They might not even know the other game.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

I have an idea: you can turn Ox’s face to left in Stone Garden, as it was in my drawings, and make it different from Horizons. About Index it’s same. Please.

Oh, I see. It is not the same Ox as in Horizons. Perhaps you should remove the reference to Horizons in the article, then, because it is just confusing: nobody can see anymore what the 'original move' of the Ox in Horizons was.

Sorry, if you can, please change THERE moves of Index and Ox. All other is COOL!