Enter Your Reply

The next game on the list is Mats Winther's Mastodon Chess, featuring a
powerful short range leaper. The game is 8x10, so the pawns, 10 each, are
4 squares apart and our orthochess player can be comforted by standard
pawn play. 

The piece is interesting, has been independently designed a number of
times, and can be found in several games onsite. It steps 1 square or
leaps 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally, attacking 6 to 16 squares
unstoppably. For comparison, on an 8x10, the knight attacks 2 - 8 squares
unblockably. The bishop attacks 7 - 13, the rook 16, and the queen, 23 to
29, but the bishop, rook and queen can all be blocked. This leaper is a
major piece in the game.

What that player may not be comforted by is the specific placement of
pieces in this variant. White's back rank is RMBNQKNBMR. This is jarring
to the  conventional. After consideration, I'd go with RNBMQKMBNR, over
the given setup. Why? It restores the RNB...BNR configuration. Comfort. 
The most appealing positions for a new piece inserted into FIDE as a pair
are in the center or at the ends. And this is a short range piece.
Sticking it in a corner may or may not be poor placement, but putting it
in the middle and letting the other pieces drift over, even the knight,
works for me, because the knight's first logical destination is flanked
by the mastodon's [acc. to M Winther, first known name was Pasha] two
logical opening destinations. [Note no B/N interference in the suggested
setup.] 

While the knight does suffer a bit on an 8x10, there are 1.5 times as many
center squares where the knight is at full power [24/16] and 1.25 times as
many squares where the knight is at 3/4 power. The number of corner
squares, where the N is most restricted, stays the same. So the knight
does gain in absolute power on the larger board. I don't see the need to
move the knight in on an 8x10, in general. It still is the same distance
from the opponent's back rank, which is more important than a little
extra distance side to side. On 10x10 this changes, and moving knights
forward 1 square [along with the pawns] is generally a good idea, in my
opinion.

I've twisted Mats' game around enough for one comment. If we take the
idea seriously, are there any general [design] principles coming out of
all this, that are or can be generally agreed upon?