Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

you just have to become a member, then you put up an invitation, see here
/play/pbmlogs/index.php
anything with 'open' in 'next move for' column is a game that someone
is wanting an opponent.

I believe that the Janus pre-set has the Kings and Queens reversed.  Although the reversal looks natural, the rules state: '... the king is at the left of the queen, so the queen still starts at a square of her own color.'  I do not think it matters much for the tournament... However, for a serious Janus player who would be familiar with openings it could be an issue.  I know that I would not like to play Fide Chess with Kings and Queens reversed.

In case the promotion rules for Janus Chess aren't clear, note that at least Fergus' preset for Janus Chess allows for promotion to a Janus piece.

I like that the pieces, including the Januses, can hope to usually develop smoothly in this variant, nice for a 10x8 board.

Why is there no black Janus?

Why is there no black Janus?

That piece glyph is supposed to be called Archbishop, and then it exists in both colors. I don't know how a copy of the white one began a life of its own as WPaladin.

Why is there no black Janus?

I have replaced it with KnightBishop, which is the appropriate image to use for this piece. The Archbishop image could be for another piece with that name. The Paladin image is the same as the Archbishop image, and someone may have done this because I used the name Paladin for this piece in some games, but I have in fact always used a Knight/Bishop hybrid image for this piece.

The problem is that the Utrecht KnightBishop sucks big time, and looks more like a Knight with a pimple on its nose. I think this is why people later created the Archbishop image.

Maybe use a set other than Utrecht for this? It looks simple enough for Alfaerie.

That is certainly possible. My own policy when I replace the main diagram in an article that is not mine by an Interactive Diagram is to reproduce the original as closely as possible. In this case that would be small-format Utrecht, using the KnightBishop piece.

I try to keep the task of upgrading to Interactive Diagrams free from any aesthetic judgements. For one, this is often a matter of taste, and in case of a disagreement between the author and a single other person I think we should respect the judgement of the author. If we want to improve the appearence of the website by phasing out certain piece images or entire piece sets, this is better not left to a single person.

That's fair.

The problem is that the Utrecht KnightBishop sucks big time, and looks more like a Knight with a pimple on its nose.

Yes, it is a bad design.

I think this is why people later created the Archbishop image.

I used grep to find each page using archbishop00.gif, archbishop01.gif, archbishop10.gif, or archbishop11.gif, and none used this image for the Knight/Bishop compound. So, it doesn't seem to have been created as a replacement for the KnightBishop image.

But why would they call it Archbishop, then? This name is hardly ever used for another piece than the BN compound.

See https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/archbishop.html

Yes, there are few pieces like this which had a name used by problemists since the early years of the 20th c., and which are now given to something else by CV fans. I'm thinking also to the Lion, the Rhinoceros, the Dragon, the Gryphon, the Ship, among others.

The problem is that the Utrecht KnightBishop sucks big time, and looks more like a Knight with a pimple on its nose.

Yes, it is a bad design.

To me, it looks like a horn, which would make the figure a good candidate for an Indrik (Jean-Louis' proposal to replace the Ancress, with which I agree).