Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I haven't given a game a 'poor' rating yet, but I really can't give
this game anything else.  The first thing I think when I look at this is
'Isn't there ANYTHING about the game of Chess that was ok as-is?'  He
changed the number of files, the number of ranks; changed the move of the
Rook, the Bishop, the Pawns (no enpassant) ...  He re-arranged the pawns! 
He doubled the number of Queens!!!  And then there's the barrier pawn,
which might make center-play more interesting, but boy is it nothing like
a 'normal' Chess piece.  And no resigning?!?  I won't even comment on
that one.

On the up-side, yes, he did add symmetry, but I just can't see giving it
a 'good' rating.  It just looks like an extreme over-reach that wasn't
all that well thought-out.  Of course, I must admit that I haven't played
it (yet) ...  It is possible that my opinion would improve.

Okay, I think I WAS too harsh.  I'm changing my rating to 'good' (P + E
= G) for concept and the interesting features (eg. Barrier Pawn).

Michael Howe-
Your ideas have been more absolute than my criticism, so I don't think I
deserve sole credit.  Anyway, this is what I had in mind:

- Dragonhorses instead of Bishops: This is less 'fiddly' and compensates
somewhat for the power lost in the next change.
- Normal Rooks
- c and g file pawns brought back one space:  This solves the clumsy
knight development problem.  I wasn't so concerned over the knight's
value, just that this minor piece had terrible development, whereas the
major pieces had easy development.  This setup, although not as pleasing
as the original, allows knights to contest the centre much more easily,
and also slows down dual Queens getting out too early.  This is just a
matter of taste though.
- Resignation allowed.  Although there might be a nice checkmate
available, this rule also lengthens games in which it is obvious who the
victor is.  This is a necessary evil to play this game practically.

I think the bishop position is interesting, so I have left it.

Other comments:
- I missed the backwards step of the pawn.  That is also another positive
for this game for interest.
- Is this correct:  Stalemate and perpetual check give you one point, but
your opponent gets 1/2 point?  If this is the case, it still encourages
checkmates (in a tournament) while the player who stalemated gets a reward
for their effort.  I don't support this for perpetual check though.

That's probably enough of my opinions for one comment, so I'll stop now.

Although this variant has some very nice aspects, I believe it also has a
great number of flaws.

Positive:
-Total symmetry which leads to balance between white and black
-Unusual Setup of pawns in which all are protected exactly once by a
major
piece.
-Barrier Pawn makes centre harder to control

Negative:
-I concur with Charles Gilman's comments that adding non-capturing moves
to bishops is a very untidy way to unbind them.  If those moves were
capturing, as J'org Knappen first thought, then it would be much less
'fiddly' and more interesting, being similar to Dragonhorses in Shogi.

-The Addition of Knight-moves to the rooks.  First of all, there is
already enough power added by the dual-queens.  Secondly, I just prefer
to
have normal rooks, and I don't see how adding the knight-moves help
'restructure' chess.  If anything, they seem to unbalance the game.
  
-Knights made almost completely useless.  First of all, as there are
knight-moves in the rooks, the knights become less useful later on, and
with more mobile bishops, knights become a lot weaker than bishops.  I
don't see why this has been done. 

But most of all:
-Development too hard for the 'weakest' piece, the knights, and too
easy
for all the other pieces!  In fact, the diagonally-moving pieces are
already attacking lots of squares before they move!  And the Rooks can
get
out really easily if needed.  But not the Knight, which has its logical
development blocked by a pawn!  Surely the point of weaker pieces (at
least in FIDE Chess) is to go out early, then let the big pieces come
later.  Seeing this is trying to 'restructure' chess, it should try to
at least play similarly.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh.  However, a bit of restructuring THIS
variant could lead to a very interesting game.

Sigh -- I have overlooked the word non-capturing in the description of 
the bishop. Thus it lacks the can-mate property.

I still maintain my rating of Kristensen's game. The symmetry he has
choosen is necessary for the balance because it allows some point
mirror play (in Go, this way of playing is known as mane go). Thus,
an advantage achieved by white on the left side can be got by black on
the
right one. The center square is special, but hard to gain.

--J%org Knappen

As I understand it, 'non-capturing' means also 'non-checking'. A King
immediately in front of a Pawn is not in check (but may be blocking it
completely), so neither is one directly in front of a Bishop in this
variant. Therefore the Bishop's enhancement has no effect on its
check(mat)ing power.
	To me, adding non-capturing moves to the Bishop seems a very untidy way
of unbinding it. There are many better sdolutions to the problem of
Bishops on an odd-files board. Wraparound and the middle option from
Billiards Chess both unbind, particularly useful for single-Bishop
variants. Two Bishops can be bound to opposite colours by starting
adjacent one side of the King with another piece similarly paired the
other side. This is the approach used in Wildebeest Chess, Bachelor Chess,
Bachelor Kamil, and most recently Mainzer Schach. It is curious that the
inventor of the last should rate so highly a game relying on what I think
of as 'botched Bishops'.

Ejnar Kristenson has good solutions for really tough problems: He has
created a chessvariant with an odd number of files which keeps the
balance between white and black. Specially, the center square is hard to
possess thanks to the innovation of the barrier pawn.

The enhanced bishop has the can-mate property and is an interesting piece
by itself. 

I also love the special rules discouraging the anomalous endings of a
chess game and the rule forbidding to resign: If you have found a nice
combination, you can enjoy the checkmate and your joy isn't spoiled by
the resignation of your opponent.  A chess variant for REAL CHESS
PLAYERS.

--J'org Knappen