Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think, there should be a white wing on L1.

I really like your new layout, but unfortunately, there are a few slips of the pen in it.

greetings Chris

I agree that the rotated images are not ideal in that respect. The comment
reminds me of my own experience of having to remember that the word
'left' upside down means 'right' and vice versa, as in the 'Look
left' and 'Look right' signs. It is always easier to read the
upside-down one across the road than the right-way-up one hidden away at
my feet!
	A more ideal depiction would be the smaller images (but still within the
normal-sized squares) such as used at
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/tamerlane.html, but I like to
keep down use of computer memory and therefore make do with what the ffen
diagrams could provide. Were it possible to represent the Shogi array (to
use a very familiar example) as for example

(rm)(nm)(general/vizir)(vizir/general)k(vizir/general)(general/vizir)(nm)
(rm)/1r5b1/(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)
(vizirm)/9/9/9/(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)
(Vizirm)(Vizirm)/1B5R1/(Rm)(Nm)(General/Vizir)(Vizir/General)K
(Vizir/General)(General/Vizir)(Nm)(Rm),

with m standing for miniaturised and / for the latter piece shrunk and
superimposed on the former I would jump at using it. Perhaps that may
some
day be possible.

Not even if you always get white and I tie one pawn behind my back? :-)
While I don't consider myself a veteran CVer, I'd probably pass for one
to most people, so I can't argue too much with you on learning curves.
But I think a good part of that learning curve is avoidable with more
user-friendly rules. [For me, that came about when I got people to play my
games and they made me give them simple, understandable rules, another
reason to suspect little general game play for Hoo Mitregi]. And maybe a
different piece set. I know when I see the same symbol used right side up,
upside down, sideways and inside-out, it bothers me, mostly because I'm
used to reading upside down and sideways, and I more or less automatically
'correct' what I'm seeing to right side up. This can make the diagrams
confusing as heck for me. I guess this is my point: the game itself looks
simple and nice and should play well - I might reduce the number of ranged
pieces, probably replace the forward-onlies with medium range pieces, but
that's me, not Charles, and his game looks good, once you understand it.
The learning curve is maybe more figuring out what is being said; but now
I am criticising another's rules-writing techniques and abilities, and
after some stuff I've put up, I shouldn't be saying much. As for some of
the other things you've said, I'd like to continue that discussion in
another comment.

Hi, Andy. I, too, am skeptical that this game has ever been played; I
seriously doubt it. That's why I didn't rate it in my first comment. Had
I, I would have given it a 'good', because until it's played, a game
cannot really be judged, and to me it looks like it would range from
average to excellent. On play balance: I think Charles is paying great
attention - he doesn't overcrowd the board with pieces like so many big
games. That alone indicates a lot [or that, like me, he couldn't come up
with any more pieces... :-) ] You say: 'Too many piece types and too many
short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp
tactics.'  I also agree there are a lot of piece-types, certainly more
than I would normally tend to use. But many of the pieces are forward-only
versions of the standard pieces. Even his odd pawn is a forward-only ferz.
I don't see much learning curve here. Also, I am familiar with shortrange
pieces, and I have to say I think you completely mischaracterize them when
you say they give a 'long slow game with no sharp tactics.' To
demonstrate my position, I would like to offer to play a number of my own
games, all shortrange. Specifically, we could play 2 games each of Great
Shatranj, Grand Shatranj, Lemurian Shatranj, Atlantean Barroom Shatranj,
and Chieftain Chess. In Great Shatranj [8x10], no piece moves more than 2;
in Lemurian [8x8] and Chieftain [12x16], no piece moves more than 3; in
Grand [10x10] and Atlantean [10x10], none more than 4. 
Okay, I'm not completely serious and I'm not really trying to put you on
the spot, I'm just trying to win a point in this discussion. But I do want
to make 2 serious points: that Charles does have a good sense of design, he
just needs to make his games available to be played to refine his designs
and prove it; and that shortrange pieces can easily be as good as
longrange ones. Heck, a CWDA game on a 10x10 with Grand Chess vs Atlantean
Barroom pieces would be a slaughter! ;-)
Enjoy.  Joe
ps: if you wanted to, we could play the games anyway...