Comments by maxkoval

I like the Abstract set, I used it when I played Gross Chess in ChessV. It is still better than those Wikipedia pieces which are now everywhere.

I don't mind these graphics, too, because they indeed represent new pieces, and look fun, but their style is not in common sense for me.

@H.G., would it be possible to add an interactive diagram for this variant, particularly this setting? - https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Mamra+Chess+with+Wuss&settings=defaultx It seems to be an interesting one, and it was played on GC more than 30 times.

Thank you for your time.

@Bn Em, I think that I'm late to reply to this, but thank you for clarifying that.

John J. G. Savard, who runs quadibloc.com stated that pieces on triangular tiling 'naturally go around in circles' if direct 'hexagonal' logic will be applied as you described it; he also suggested that alternating movement can be seen as a solution, but no diagrams of it were provided although I believe that this idea can be executed similarly to mine. A one-direction movement which can be seen as an alternative to the alternating method doesn't work equally for both the rook and bishop. So, I think that my goal on this is completed.

I didn't know what to do with knight and pawn, so I simply followed the logic of orthodox chess.

It is interesting to note that according to ludii.games, De Vasa's Chess was initially proposed on a slightly different board with eight rows instead of nine. The initial setup of it looks the same as in Mike Layfield's 9-pawn hexagonal chess but with different rules and on a non-squeezed board. Quadibloc.com also describes De Vasa's Chess as a variant with eight rows.

I think it's ready to be published.

I think it is somewhat wrong because Utrecht is a part of the CVP's history. I'm visiting this site since about 2012, the time when I didn't speak English, and this theme is largely associated by me with it. It's something like a brand because Alpha is widely used on other chess websites.

Daniel, the white line can be excluded to distinguish it better.

I think there can be another approach. Popularity is a questionable criterion in most cases because people tend to play what they were given by a search engine, the inventor's activity to promote a CV or his initial popularity like in the case of Chess960. Chess in its structure is closer to a formal science, so, the function here prevails over the form, and it would be a valid point to explore the less showcased specturm of the medium which can provide the reader with an efficient or original idea. By saying that I mean this as another possible approach, that does not exclude others. There are plenty of hidden gems on this site, some of whom didn't even get a single comment, it would be better in my opinion to promote them for further discussion instead of established CVs.

Among relatively known ones, I personally would vote for Modern Chess and Singularity Chess.

I think it can be assumed by default that this rule can be separately applicable to standard chess or any other chess-game type.

I agree that the way the bishop can change its square color through the singularity is inconsistent, as it actually should go in the reverse direction. There can be interesting variations on the subject, some of which you just described. The simplest one can be to cut the board in half vertically, and then join it again by its borders. As a result, there will be no full U-turns, and the bishop will have five directions of movement in the board's central part, like in usual three-player chess made of three 4x8 board parts, which share somewhat similar geometry.

As a minor observation, it can be pointed out that this variant has natural reverse symmetry, so the black king and queen should switch their places to preserve their initial square colors. It also can be noted that the a and h pawns can capture each other from the initial position, so, there must be an artificial restriction to stop them from that.

Wild.

@Rechefiltr is Fire, it would be interesting, but is there a need to remake it?