Comments by Charles Gilman

Well it seems to have worked - even though the preview always shows the user ID.
 	I am not convinced that this kind of variant is as bad for forward-only pieces as you make out. Thre is still a race to get pieces to the far end and promotion, and players will have to choose between pushing them to promotion and holding the stronger ones back to ambush enemies as they cross their paths. The Bishop's quickest route to promotion is on the enemy files, so deployment of suitable pieces to prevent this could be advantageous. A more unusual feature is the relationship between opposing part-symmetric pieces. These are now placed to best attack each other by sidling up, and will be able to make non-mutual threats.

It is true that many variants have produced one-off pieces beginning with O, but none were quite what I was looking for. Orphan might have worked, but at the time of writing it was off my radar - I only resorted to Joker out of desperation for a J. On the other hand Orphan has a strong resonance with Friend, and I was already using F for Foxhound as part of a larger family of pieces. Perhaps I could have had have an Orphan without a Friend based on the precedent of an Infanta without an Inquisitor. Hm, perhaps I'll add a subvariant with that, called Missing X Chess. It's probably not worth its own page.
	Having one of each piece would have violated my idea for full use of 4 distinguishable FIDE sets on 4 FIDE boards.

This is an interesting theory, but details of how the pieces were chosen belie it. Certainly part of the motivation was an exercise in choosing pieces subject to a not uncommon restriction, but I would hope the game more playable than one where each letter's piece were indeed chosen randomly.
	The criteria in the introduction rule out most combinations fitting the broader Duke criteria. Using 'as many FIDE piece types as practicable' restricts B, K, P, Q, and R to the FIDE pieces, while 'grouping piece types as much as possible with relatively few one-offs' also rules out vast numbers of combinations. Insisting on 'pieces representable by 4 distinguishable FIDE sets on 4 FIDE boards' rules out too many weak pieces, as pieces of which there are only 1 or 2 should be able to hold their own on a large board. Thus I have chosen to have 8 each of the 4 piece types least suited to being present in small numbers.
	All the same, any comment giving new ideas is welcome. I have been inspired to review my choice of pieces in light of additions to the pool since this idea first came to me, and replaced the Hood, which is really too short-range for a lone piece on a large board, with the long-range Harrower. One of the suggestions for A, Antelope, might be an improvement on Ambrose, both thematically and perhaps in terms of understandability. Coincidentally the Antelope has a subset of the Ambrose destinations but on an unblockable path - like the Nightrider relative to the Rhino. I am deferring highlighting the page as changed until I have decided whether to make that change as well.

I concur with you on Storm the Ivory Tower. Given that the Fortress remains 3x3 the obvious rule would be that:
	orthogonal pieces can move diagonally one step to/from, or two straight through, the centre of the fortress (existing Jang Gi rule);
	diagonal pieces can move orthogonally one step to/from, or two straight through, the centre of the fortress (central orthogonals of Fortress).
	Compound pieces would of course be unaffected.

If I took all criticism of my variants personally I'd have pretty low self-esteem!
	I agree that compound oblique leapers can be overpowering on so modest a board, which is why I use them so sparingly. Perhaps I should have gone for a bigger variant and more piece types. Still, you hav einspired me to go ahead wth a comment of my own on Falcon Chess.
	Castling is a special move, but one that in FIDE Chess (and Yoto) can be replicated in just three ordinary moves if the square in front of the Rook's destination is also empty. A corresponding move can be replicated in Shogi only by dropping a captured piece, and in Xiang Qi not at all. In Xiang Qi on a Shogi Board replication takes five moves but without clearing first. So why exclude it in Yoto, even if its use would probably be rare?

I am further inspired to write in defence of the Falcon piece, at least, by comments on some variants of mine that do not use it. Yes, the Falcon is weaker than the Bison, but too much of a strong piece is not always a good thing.
	Comments on variants using compounds of two oblique leapers have made me reluctant to use them further unless a theme calls for them. They can just about get by on a board of squares, or more sparingly on a hex-prism board, but on a cubic board they can be overpowering. A Gnu, Gazelle, or Bison in the centre of an 8x8x8 board can reach 48 cells, and a Buffalo 72. The same could of course be said of the Churchwarden, Samurai, Overon, and Canoe but at least that lot are confined to the second preimeter.
`	Being blockable a Falcon does not dominate even the cubic board to the same extent, and suggests a logical set of fellow pieces. Where, by mixing Wazir and Ferz steps, it complements the Knight corresponding 3rd-perimeter steppers can be devised mixing Wazir and Viceroy steps to complement the Sexton - call it the Vulture - and mixing Ferz and Viceroy steps to complement the Ninja - call it the Kite. Even their own compounds are not unthinkable with sufficient blocking pieces - say Merlin for Falcon+Vulture, Kestrel for Falcon+Kite, Osprey for Vulture+Kite, and Eagle for the triple compound. In fact I might try out a cubic variant with the compound pieces, if George Duke does not object.

The illustrations of sets do a lot to put this game into its historic and geographic context.

Has anyone else noticed that the Bare Facing rule is an example, many centuries before the rise of music downloads, of a restriction on file sharing?

He is quite right that my piece cataloguing has moved on considerably since my last comments, and I now have variants using the pieces mentioned. The Guru and Sadhu are indeed described in Man and Beast 03: From Ungulates Outward, and the Guru is used in one army each on pages 2 and 6 of my Armies of Faith series. The Sahib, Memsahib, and Nabob are described in Man and Beast 11: Long-nosed Generals, and are demotees on page 5 of Armies of Faith.

I notice that Luiz Carlos Campos has yet to clarify the Camel/Giraffe ambiguity - or correct his Brahmin description.

I'll certainly consider putting something in about that, although it may take time. Your comment reminds me of some classic examples of Jewish humour involving visits to China, which I might add at the same time.

Having seen your comments elsewhere I can see why a variant with Cannons and a Cannonade would appeal to you!

One way to represent all possible pieces would be with 32 identical dice. They could be placed with faces parallel to the cell edges for one player and at 45° to them for the other. 1 would represent Pawn, 2 Knight, and so on upward.
	This could also be applied to Mortal Shogi, but with 40 dodecahedral dice. In that case the top face could be treated as the conventional (though irregular) pentagon that Shogi pieces are with a side facing its own player and a corner the enemy. Of course faces 11 and 12 would nveer be needed. Face 10 would be used only for array Kings, which would stay at that number - likewise face 6 in Mortal Chessgi.
	That gives me an idea for further variants. Start with either array, use dodecahedral dice for capturable pieces and something completely different for Kings, and have pieces return by the Mortal Shogi sequence but with the 'missing' Chessgi pieces inserted appropriately. Intuitive positions are Queen at the top, Knight just below Bishop, and Pawn second to bottom - numbers 12, 7, and 2 on the dice with other pieces upped by 1 or 2. Pawns would be promoted to Queen (possibly with the alternative of Knight as Knights are also unpromotable) and the rest as in standard Shogi. As Queens would have so far to fall before being lost, these variants might be called Vivat Regina Chessgi and Vivat Regina Shogi.