Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The individual writes, quote:

'I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant!'

If that is the case, just state this is a remake of game_____________. That way we can see what game you are reffering to as the predecessor game. Just because a game already exists does not mean it is a poor game. However, copying a game without permission and/or proper reference to the original is poor. But that has nothing to do with the actual game.

It is interesting that the critic uses the names of Fisher[sic] and Kasparov as his own - hardly original. Those names already exist.

The critic goes on blabbing a bunch of comments about non-original and that he apparently is ill. So, what does that have to do with the game? My opinion: It is good to see a 10x10 board with pieces commercially available. The game is certainly playable and demands stretching one's chess logic. Does this game already exist under a different name? I don't know. But there is a Zillions engine for it. The critic did not provide us with the name of the earlier game - or with any useful information.

By the way, I think editors should remove or substitute vulgar words like **** and ***** that were used in the previous comment. They are not professional. They are immature and insulting. Chess Variants people (all people) should be above and beyond such immaturity.

I also thought that the previous comment was unwarranted.

Tested the Zillions implementation of this game, and found that it does have some nice play. Those Soldiers can quickly take to the center of the field, so any form of Pawn structure may appear haphazard.

But this allows for quick development of the power pieces. Which you need a fair number to pin that King. Three rook-types, instead of two.

I do think that the Knight should be allowed its two-step move throughout play, rather than only on the back rank. And that the Soldier's three-step was only available as an initial move, after restricted to two-step.

All in all, an interesting game.

I agree, I my comment had not the most adequate tone too it and for that
I´m sorry. And I haven´t tried the variant, because I don´t thing
something like 'Big Bat' is worth it. I really think the guy just
thought some moves (with no much effort) in order to commercialize
something barely similar to chess. Please look at the box art! But you are
right, the game might be fun to play. I just completely dislike the huge
board and the lack of deep thought put into it. For me, the similar a
variant is to chess (but obviously different in some creative ways), the
better the variant is! Why? Because chess is just perfect!!! The way all
the pieces are related to each other in their moves, and in such a little
8x8 space! Some examples? Maharaja, Chess960, even Capablanca chess which
uses a slightly bigger board. In the great original part in those games
can just be the different inicial setting! Why I say the guy didn´t put
much thought into the game? Play with a 10x10 board chess with your
regular moving pieces: it will be boring, completely boring. For instance,
take the knight or the pawn. They´ll need ages to be in an interesting
position. You don´t need to be a scientist to come to most of the moves
the guy uses; you have to move like that to make the game interesting.
Research why the pawn can advance two squares in it´s inicial move. Now
compare the moves of this game: it´s the same kind of thought. Surely, the
game like he presents it, doesn´t exist: what I meant is the general
thoughts!
There are other things that I can discuss, but just want to give general
view of what I meant. Of course, it´s just my opinion and like I said: the
game might be good. I, for example, think the guy who created Omega Chess
put quite an effort in presenting his variant: it´s more... cohesive! And
a lot more like chess (this is also important for me: the variant´s
relationship to chess. It has to be related or else you have something
more of a different game than of a CHESS variant. For example Arimaa is
incredibly creative and shows a lot of thought put behind it, but it´s not
a chess variant; you just use chess pieces!). 
I chose the name of Fisher Kasparov not because I wanted to be original,
but because I wanted to pay tribute to these chess masters! Although,
writing Fischer without the c was a horrible mistake (I thought he, being
from the States, wroted it without it). Admiration and originality are two
different things!
And finally, my comment wasn´t vulgar! Why was it vulgar? I didn´t use any
words that needed any kind of censorship! NOT ONE! It was a little out of
line? Yes! But it was not vulgar! Any way, sorry if I offended you. Just
keep playing the greatest, most perfect game in the world and it´s
millions of variants. Peace!