Single Comment

If I waited a little longer, I wouldn't have to do this at all - most of
what I'd say has already been said. My discussion of Fergus Duniho's
Eurasian Chess will be a bit more subjective than those of Maura's or
Winther's games. 

First, I like 10x10 boards. There's some more room to maneuver. Also, the
advantage a 10x10 has over the 8x10 is that it's square. It maintains the
same overall shape and balance as traditional chess. The board isn't
'funny-looking'. But it may be too big. The 10x10's disadvantage is
that it's now 'too far' across the board. The 8x10 maintained the same
separation between the sides as the standard 8x8, giving a comfort edge.
But more on this below.

Second, I like what Fergus has done with the setup. I believe he has
properly used time and space on this board. 
 * By moving the pawn rows up 1, the 4-square separation between the sides
is returned. This is more important to chess than it appears at first
glance. Count the pawn moves, most and least, to cross between the sides.
Even with the 3-step, pawns back requires 4 steps to cross at least, and 6
at most. It may be 5 steps, too. Standard and Eurasian offer 2 identical
options, either 3 [least] or 4 [most]. Generalized pawn play and number of
pawn moves required remains the same. Conclusion: on 10x10, the better
position for the pawns for a next chess is up on the 3rd rank of a 10x10. 
* The starting piece density and placement is good. Giving 2 rows to the
pieces allows 2 pairs of 'Asian' pieces to be added to the standard
chesspiece mix, when only 1 pair would fit with the pawns back. It allows
the knights to be moved up one square at start, which to a good extent
balances out the knight's being slower on 10x10. It allows far more
tactical flexibility, both to the designer building setups and to the
player maneuvering pieces. [grin! Also lets you hang your pawns out to dry
easier.] 

Finally, I might quibble a little about the exact initial setup, but I've
never played this game. And because it uses 4 pieces/side I don't design
with and am not all that comfortable using in a game, I don't have a
really great feel for how this game will play. Eight leapers running
around in a game with 4 rooks, 4 bishops, and 2 queens is a lot of
firepower. More than I'd personally want to use. I suspect that once the
'new players' get a bit of practice with the leapers, they should love
the game. I think Fergus has achieved his purpose here. I don't think
this is quite 'next chess', but it is a good step past the limitations
now appearing in FIDE. Of the 3 games George has proposed, I find this one
to be the best 'game after chess' as is.