Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Affecting the initial state is somewhat tricky, because the Interactive Diagram is initialized with a certain delay. This to make sure the initialization routine can see all Diagrams on the page, and is not immediately executing after the page has been loaded enough to only see the first Diagram. So you cannot use the code you use later for altering a Diagram that you use in the buttons immediately.

The way I would do it, is first alter the mechanism by which you change things now, by letting all buttons call the same function (say 'AlterDiagram(n)'), specifying by the parameter n what should actually be altered. So AlterDiagram would contain a switch(n) statement, where each case does what you now have written directly in the button. Initially you can then call AlterDiagram with a random number as parameter (Math.floor(nmax*Math.random()). Or call it twice, once for the base variant, and once to choose the off-board piece.

The main difficulty is when to call it. You could call it with a delay larger than the betza.js script uses to call its Init() function, but that seems a bit risky in case the page lows more slowly than that (or future versions of betza.js use another delay). Now you can prevent that betza.js invokes the Init() routine at all, by, before specifying the URL to betza.js

<script>var scriptSeen = 7;</script>

(Betza.js uses this to make sure the Init() routine is only executed once, even if there are multiple links to the script on the page, such as could happen in a Comments page.) You then should arrange the Init() function to be called from your own code. You could do this through

<script>
function MyInit() {
  Init();
  var n = ...; // number of the random position you want to show
  AlterDiagram(n);
}
setTimeout('MyInit()', 100); // arrange MyInit() to be invoked 100 msec from now.
</script>

This guarantees that you execute the AlterDiagram() for picking the initially shown position only after the initialization has been done.

I have remade the six articles with the games in my collection of games inspired by Kevin Pacey, into one. Hopefully that is better for everyone involved. Please take a look! If this article is accepted I'll delete the six old ones.

I think this is a very good way to present a group of variants that is so closely related. But I still have a few suggestions for further improvement:

The gatable pieces start in the piece table, but this table starts closed, and it might not occur to the reader to open it. You can force a piece table that is open from the beginning by including <table id="KevinTable"></table>, e.g. where you now have the KevinList. (Which such an open table you would need to also include enableAI=2 in the diagram definition to keep the AI available.)

The board uses a square size 35x35, because that is the I.D.'s default, and you did not specify a size in the initial Diagram. But then you use 50x50 piece images. This is no problem, as betzaNew.js scales the images to fit the board size. (Unlike betza.js, which would do the opposit.) But this makes the piece table, which does not have such scaling, look unnaturally large compared to the board. Which would become all the more obvious when you would always display them side by side. You could cure that by using the alfaeriePNG35 set. (Or put squareSize=50 in the initial Diagram, but then board and piece table might be too wide to display side by side.)

Actually I like the way you solved the placement issue in the GC preset (gatable pieces starting in the center of the board) better than dragging the pieces from the table. But the I.D. doesn't allow it! Even though it would allow illegal moves in general, it does not allow moves to 'hole' squares. Perhaps I should allow those too? Or at least allow those for virgin pieces on the central rank(s)?

Instead of writing "choose your desired diagram" I would say "choose the desired setup". You should add some instructions for how to place the Griffon / Falcon / Manticore too before starting normal play (and opening the AI panel), especially if these come from the table. I guess I could have the I.D. suppress the AI from replying to moves that were not at least pseudo-legal (i.e. to non-highlighted destinations). Then it would not matter when you opened the AI panel.

I think it is site policy to have pages that only look acceptable for viewers with JavaScript switched on. So I think you should at least provide a static image of one of the start positions (and perhaps of all three), within <noscript> tags.

[Edit] I now made the proposed changes to the Diagram script. So it should be possible to start the gatable pieces on the central rank.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, HG! I'll get to your suggestions sooner rather than later.

While working on my collection for frog/Hannibal/Waffle chess with Gryphon/Manticore and Falcon I am a bit confused where to actually put the Interactive diagrams. I think best, as there is an ai, would be to have a "try it" separate chapter (or "play it" if that is deemed as a better title). The way things are, "initial position" and "pieces" are both good places to put them. Please take a moment to think about this. Fergus, what do you think? Is it doable? The rest, what do you guys think?

While working on my collection for frog/Hannibal/Waffle chess with Gryphon/Manticore and Falcon I am a bit confused where to actually put the Interactive diagrams.

You already have it in the Setup section, which is where they usually go.

I think best, as there is an ai, would be to have a "try it" separate chapter (or "play it" if that is deemed as a better title).

Why?

Because in the setup section the author can talk about the setup. In the pieces section about the piece powers without invoking the interactive diagram which will be saved for the try it section. Of anything the interactive diagram serves both the setup and pieces sections well and it can fit in any of them. But it is more than that by allowing an user to play the game. And currently the setup/pieces section are relegated to explaining what the diagram does.

I see the point. The diagrams' four functions--setup diagram, individual piece movement displays, move pieces around, and play against AI--each naturally fit into different sections. But breaking it apart into those would be worse. So then do you replace a static diagram at the start of the article, or add the new one later? I don't think it matters too much, but saving some space by replacing the setup diagram is nice, and giving the interactive tool near the beginning of the article is more engaging.

I was thinking on having the try it section just before the notes section. But I see where you are coming from.

I think it is by far the best to use it as the main diagram in the setup section. That is where you would put a static diagram, and I don't see any reason to place it elsewhere just because it is interactive. Before the availability of Interactive Diagrams the 'gold standard' for articles here was to have an image of the setup accompanied with the names and coordinates of the pieces, either in list or paragraph form.

I see no reason for showing the initial position twice; that is just presenting redundant information.

IMO using a different section for playing is a bad thing; people visiting this website would expect they can play against the main diagram, as this is how most articles have it, and might not look further down if the main diagram is static.

BTW, it is pretty annoying that tables suddenly have a different background color than the page as a whole. It seems the standard style sheets are messed up.

I had though is better to show the user first the setup, then introduce them the rules, and then offer them the chance to play the games. But I 'll do it the way the people with more experience decide

Note that you declared the Pawn royal in your Diagram. (Holes are not counted; they do not appear in the table.)

Thanks for the heads up!

@HG,

I have put the pieces in the middle rank, but they can't be moved in the holes. What have I done wrong?

I suppose the 'middle ranks' are not middle enough. With odd ranks it only allows moves from the entral rank.

Oh, yes, thanks!

This article seems ready for a review. When this article is accepted I will delete the no longer needed 6 articles that were presenting these games separately.

As the weekend is approaching, I'd like to give a friendly reminder to the editors that this article as ready for review!

Woah, somehow you got it!!!

really one page instead of six is what I suggested much time ago. Well done!

Only flaw is that some pieces are linked to Piececlopedia while others aren’t.

Some pieces don't have piececlopedia articles.

HG Muller has taught some new things and then I could do it.

One more time. This is ready for review!

I've now published this;

note that when viewing without Javascript enabled, the diagram fails to show up; it might be worth placing a backup diagram (with suitable placeholder images for the bent rider and leaper) under \<noscript\> for those who don't JS

Thanks!... I'm not sure about what you say about the bent rider and the leaper though.