Single Comment

Mike Nelson says 'The castling rule might not quite be sufficient.'

This is an excellent and well-considered observation. It makes me very
happy to see somebody new contribute such fine thoughts.

However, this is only intended to be rule zero. If you design a game where
you have a piece ADsNfbW which starts in the corner, you are expected to
notice whether or not Rule Zero gives an appropriate definition for
Castling with it.

Also, for example, I am currently working out a game where the board
contains 16 neutral pieces -- each of which covers a 4x4 area as in Grid
Chess -- which the players may move after their normal move, a multipart
move similar to Avalanche Chess. Rule Zero defines two things about this
game that I intend to specify anyway -- I intend to say specifically that
rule zero applies in two situations in order to avoid any possible doubt or
confusion.

In this case, rule zero will serve not so much to save typing as to
reassure the reader of the game that the rules are familiar!

I have always tried to point out whenever possible that I am using rules
that are merely the standard FIDE rules extended by interpretation to cover
a new situation; for example, promotion to any piece (except P or K) in
either army (that's what happens in the FIDE rules, right?). And the reason
for pointing this out was to reassure the player that very few new rules
need be learned for the game.

(((of course, my last few games have been very much cucina bolognese, very
rich and with many ingredients; but hey, we go through phases in our
creativity.)))