Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I’ve edited this page, so rangers can capture up to 3 pieces.

Thank you for the diagram for calibrating this variant.

I adapted this page

By the time, what you decide about this variant?..

I revised that article by some editing and adding diagrams for better explanation of the rules.

I’ve decided (long time ago, but written it just now) to add the pawns. Probably I will calibrate the rules (now pawn takes in en-passant style, but king still can’t take at all)

Another decisions {if these will go down} are 1. to make pawn capture diagonally by moving straight forward (as knight, capture is optional and can take up to 2 foes including cornered ones – now this version is omitted because pawns can start taking from 2nd move which’s not in my plans) and 2. let king capture in the same way as pawn does (also up to 2, also can take cornered; and it’s also omitted because otherwise it changes the character of the game even much more cardinally than the pawn tweak)

Rules and text were revised. See this to understand how (so I request for remaking the short description of this CV, appearing near its name, write "No displacement capture, all non-royal pieces take by dissecting or bypassing")

This is ready (I missed 1 thing all this time, now fixed).

To understand how it’s changed, read this item’s comments before.

Thanks for minor tweaks, it’s now ready…

This is considered as ready (?).

BTW CAN YOU SAY PLS

what’s missing here, or needs to be fixed, etc.? I post this link to message again.

I took a look at the comments to see who the last editor to comment on this game was. It was me. You ignored my comment, as your page is still using an incorrect definition of dissect. Here is a dictionary entry for the word:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissect

Bruh! argh! hmmm…

I was creating this by Russian understanding of this word which is “рассекать”and can informally mean “move very fast”, related to this game because it’s possible to take several pieces per turn.

Maybe change dissecting to dissolving? It adds sense and saves root idea!

UPD: noted that there was no mention of promotion, fixed that)

UPD2: fixed, rewritten, clarified that capturing the pieces in row is possible and 3-piece restriction is manual tweak, not the capacity. Also read please (but dissolving instead of dissecting)

Dissolve does not mean going through.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissolve

I was creating this by Russian understanding of this word which is “рассекать”and can informally mean “move very fast”,

Well, Russian double entendres are sure to be lost on an English-language audience. According to Wiktionary, рассекать could mean cut, cleave, or pass through. While the literal meanings of cut and cleave do not usually mean to pass through, the actions of cutting or cleaving usually involve some kind of movement through something, and the phrase "cut through" is sometimes used by analogy to mean going through something without any actual cutting involved. If I cut through an intersection, for example, I am passing through it rather than cutting it into pieces. Also, Webster's definition 3b of cut is "to move swiftly," and it gives the example of "a yacht cutting through the water." So, instead of dissecting or dissolving, I think you mean cutting through.

Maybe this?

• Capturing piece is cutting through

• Captured one is dissolved.

Edited, revised, found some mistakes like blocking the check by Bishop where it was already taken in first example)

I made some edits. Let me know if I kept things accurate.

Watched, screamed, sweared in my mind, agreed and counter-edited, watch it.

Please decide if it’s ready.

OK so looking at the page as it stands, I think I can make out most of the rules, so in that sense it at least more‐or‐less meets the minimum criteria for publishing. Nevertheless I feel it could be profitably edited to make the flow of information clearer. A couple of specifics:

• ‘In a row’ (Pieces section, Paragraph 1) doesn't imply adjacency in English; I would consider all the black pieces in each Diagram except the g7 knight to be in a row. ‘Adjacent’ would be more precise, or you could say explicitly that this applies even if there are no empty spaces between them, as long as there is one behind them
• The descriptions of the pieces make no distinctions between rules (e.g. “moves & checks as in chess, unobstructed diagonal line”) and incidental observable properties (“can't capture a piece which stands on the edge of the board”); in general it's more useful to separate these out clearly — the latter is perfect Notes section material
• It might be clearer to describe the details of the Ranging moves (and captures) outwith the individual piece sections, all in one go; it might even be sufficient to just describe how their captures differ from the orthodox ones (e.g. “Bishop, Rook, and Queen move and give check as in normal Chess, but capture differently as follows:” followed by the list of applicable rules).
• You note that capturing is optional for the knight; is it possible for it to take one potential victim but not both? The Example clarifies that it can capture even if the other square it passes through contains a Friendly piece, but that might be worth making textually explicit too
• Can a king castle if it's in check from a piece it would capture by castling? e.g. White Ke1,Ra1/Black Rd1? A literal reading says no, but it could be made more explicit either way
• The requirement for a space between pieces to be captured by castling is inconsistent with the lack of such a requirement for all other pieces; why?
• The distinction between giving check and winning by capture, whilst as you say shared with Atomic, I find very strange (in both games); saying that a threat of capture is also check would lead to entirely equivalent outcomes. But with Atomic as a precedent I guess this isn't in itself really a blocker for publication

Edited, closed all your checkboxes)

I made a couple of minor edits for grammar (and in one case formatting); more could in principle be done but I prefer to be conservative with all but the most egregious things. Please check to see if there's any of the edits that you take issue with (I'd imagine not), and if they're OK with you I'll release it — I think the rules themselves are clearly enough stated

With apologies for taking so long :‌) (life got a bit busy for a moment there)

Please check to see if there's any of the edits that you take issue with (I'd imagine not),

All’s OK!

and if they're OK with you I'll release it — I think the rules themselves are clearly enough stated

Thanks, agreed+

With apologies for taking so long :‌) (life got a bit busy for a moment there)

Same thing;)

This page waited for ~1.7 years to be published. Thank you very much!

However, can you change its description to “No displacement capture, all non-royal pieces take by cutting through or bypassing.”, please?

The author, Lev Grigoriev, has updated this page.