Comments by ultimatecoolster

I'm not discouraging creativity of Chess variants. The problem is that
everyone has their own solution to the next Chess, many I think
ill-considered. Some of these solutions are bland and inelegant, like the
dreaded Capablancoids, and others are kludgy or with some random new piece.
The remaining variants, while good both in theory and play, may not catch
on.

Well, what I did was just look at some random variants, picked out some
interesting things from them, and worked a variant around those. If there
are too many special features, I try to blend them together, especially
where common points arise. (Some people don't do this, resulting in some very ugly variants.) Perhaps you can create Chimera #2, Rich.

To speak as George Duke:

Rider is mono-axial Class in Phylum Planar.

The Kingdom is Chessoids; displacement-captors with no effects, in the Domain Wargames.

Moorider can be Maorider+Moarider or what is called 'multi-path',
correct? Multi-path is the father of planar, and grandfather of
rider/slider. Leaper/stepper is the father of multi-path, descending as
movement becomes more restricted...

Multi-positional, I reckon, Mr. Duke, is an entirely different thing from
the rest, which can be established in my said hierarchy. It is like a
sub-species, as any piece can have such quality and the rest is the same.
Now that the hierarchy is established, also, I wonder what new cousins
pieces could have.

Leaper/Stepper
   ___|___
  |       |
 ??? Multi-Path (must have at least one clear path)
       ___|___
      |       |
     ???    Planar (must have all clear paths)
           ___|___
          |       |
         ??? Rider/Slider (must travel along one axis only)

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/conversion-chess

Further syncretism. Games of this sort can be considered 'themed' and a
good method of generating themed games is to combine similar points of
existing variants.

While there are previous pieces, Duke, I submit my own in a line of all too
little used pieces with effects derived from personality:

Fox is cowardly. When attacked, he will defend himself. Fox is clever.
When another piece is attacked, he can move to any square attacking the
attacker. Dog is loyal. He must defend. Dog is aggressive. He must capture
otherwise, and attacked pieces are immobilized. Ox is stubborn. He will not
stop moving on a path, or standing still. Ox is industrious. He will keep
moving on a path, capturing any pieces. Frog is benign. He does not do much
when attacked. Frog is talented. He will do much when not attacked.

I bring to you the Bodhisattva Pawn. Normally Pawns will promote as soon as
possible. However, the Bodhisattva Pawn may instead wait on the last rank,
allowing any Pawn to either move to his starting square or move any amount
of squares along the path he took to promotion before being obstructed if
either on that path or his starting square.

Maybe the Queen is easier to understand when learning Chess when it moves more like a King, because kings and queens pair in real life. In Shatranj, the corresponding piece is called a general, and generals do not pair with kings so much. In Xiang Qi, the king moves only orthogonally, maybe to pair better with the diagonal moves. Kings are really a difficult thing to choose, because it is the center of Chess and you want it to represent most pieces to   make different pieces at least seem important even if weaker.

I don't think the Queen is a more intuitive piece personally, but most people I teach Chess have problems with Knights more, and also then Cardinals. Many Chess players perceive some balance between orthogonal and diagonal, and sometimes also Knights. Really diagonal is just orthogonal on a different, bigger board and Knights are diagonal but use 2 different diagonals together that make them not colorbound.