[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.
Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.
The verbal description of the Wizard does not correspond to the move it has in the Interactive Diagram, and is in fact not clear at all. (E.g. can e4-f7 be blocked at e7? The text suggests that.) The ID allows it to replace a friend on the A squares, kicking it back to the F squares.
As to the Bowman, it is not clear whether the non-leaping Knight moves over the W squares, F squares, or both. I also would not refer to a capture as 'rifle capture' when the piece moves. Technically capturing the next piece in the direction of movement is 'advancer capture', but people not familiar with Ultima/Roccoco would not know that, so it would have to be explained. (Or referred to, if it is in the summary of technical terms.)
The verbal description of the Berserker fails to mention it can jump.
The way you describe the King implies that capturing the checker, or blocking the check, are not allowed check evasions (like with the Wuss). Do I understand correctly that when you are checkamated, but have a safe Prince, it would be good strategy to capture the most valuable piece you have under attack, because the opponent cannot recapture, as he must capture the King instead?
The verbal description and move diagram say the Sergeant's sideway move is move-only, but in the ID it is capture-only.
The move diagrams use the marker symbols in a non-standard way; the jump symbol should only be used for direct leaps, not for distant rider moves (or any move that can be blocked).
About your remarks on strategy: if Pawns are such good defenders, how can you ever beat an opponent without any support from your own Pawns, if he keeps his Pawns as defenders? Seems to me you must storm the opponent camp with Pawns, to break through his defences.
BTW, most of the promotion rules can be easily added to the ID, through inserting a morph parameter after the piece definition.
@Jean-Louis: I agree with the general judgement that there is not enough editorial effort here, even if this submission might not be the best evidence for that. I have editorial stataus, but it was granted to me for the purpose of equiping existing articles with Interactive Diagrams, and I cannot even find enough time to make much progress on that. Since I seem to be the only editor that visits this site on a daily basis, involving myself with other tasks would basically mean 100% of the editorial work would be done by me. Most editors seem to only show up here once a month, if not once a year or not at all.
It seems we are in desperate need of more active editors. It would also help if the submission system would keep track of the status of submissions in a more detailed way then indicating whether the are hidden or not. Like 'ready for submission', 'reviewed and waiting for correction'. So that editors can quicly see which submissions beg their attention.
But I don't think we should just publish anything that satisfies our standards for presentation and clarity. We should definitely apply standards for quality and originality. If a variant is really flawed, e.g. by being a certain draw, or a trivial win for one player, that would be reason for rejecting it. A very minor variation on an existing variant (e.g. Capablanca Chess where stalemate is a win) should not be published as a separate article, but at best lead to adding a remark mentioning it as a rule variation of the variant from which it is derived. (And IMO the mentioned variant would not deserve even that, as the idea is too obvious.)