Single Comment

[Incidentally AltOrth Hex looks to in-slot soon closer to Time Travel than Fisher R.] That is still the wrong way about it. All the M&Bxxs need to be re-done from scratch from the ground up not the top down. There were already cries to re-name basic mono-leapers. The more piece-types get developed in Triangles, as they should, the more the cv art-designer crowd is going to use plain Triangles for clarity, not Squares or Hexagons under that and this binding and switching qualification.  From the One Chess 8x8 and the lesser age-old Xiangqi, players might be weened by consensus of approved cvs getting played. To connect with common sense, the CVPage artist should convey the triangle-CV on Triangles; then all avenues are getting explored helping the cause. No one as player is intent to dwell on Gilmanesque ''duality between Cubic and Tetrahedral boards'' or ''semi-duality on cubic boards.'' Instead, just state the Rules in plain parlance. Those other interesting topics belong with problemists, including prolificists themselves, as who we rightly bridle at one arbitrary specific rules-sets after another by seeming random selection.  By the way, where are Man&Beasts' Alquerque-board piece-types: 
http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/chesquerque.html? Appearances are deceptive that they look square, and do not collapse them into treatment by Squares alone. Or, if going to use Weave and Dungeon connectivity,  
http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/weave.html, any new pieces are more interesting than such generality on how, by twist or turn, this can really be diced up a certain way into something other than unique board.  Strategy and tactics are nil when, upon quick read, the boards and rules are not intuitive.  It never can get to a playing sequence and competition, simulation of Nature.  Where is even one Gilman game score? Or problem-theme Mate in Two? Compare that oversight to the Betzan thousands of scores:
http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/dan/openings.html.