Comments by LarryLSmith

That inconsistency of the initial board set-up has long been noted at the
original webpage from which this page was generated.  The 'standard'
form is noted as Barsoomian and the other is noted as Manatorian.

http://users3.ev1.net/~llsmith/Jetan/setup.htm

Most use the Barsoomian form, but there is no restriction for the
preference of the Manatorian.

This page might need to be updated.

For those who are interested, for in-depth discussions with other fans of
ERB's Jetan, you may wish to visited the Yahoo! Jetan Group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jetan/

Be sure to catch up on the previous postings.

No one is obligated to use wagers in Jetan.  But ERB did specifiy that
 wagers were a large part of this game.

Of course, the dynamics which Mark points out works both ways.  And
 wagering does bring the Chief-draw into value, rather than it being an
 un-desired outcome.

There is also supposed to be ten games played between the opponents.  But
 this does not prevent players from attempting a simple game.

Posted at the Yahoo! Jetan Group are a series of games played between
 Kerry Handscomb and myself using the simple wager system which I propose
 in this paper.  They demonstrate that the game is quite playable in this
 form, and even enjoyable.  We utilized several different interpretation of
 the pieces, and had little trouble prosecuting a good game with each.

For those who are truly interested, check out James Spratt's Jetan-Sarang.
 A really cool Jetan variant.  It offers a larger playing field and more
pieces.

He has even sculpted some pieces for it and the 'standard' Jetan set. 
If you want to buy a set, drop him an e-mail.

In fact, his game inspired me to create Warlord Jetan.

I had thought that the Daleks would move either as Bishops or Unicorns in
the 3D playing field.  This is because they most maintain contact with a
specific portion of the field for power.

They would capture a piece by merely taking any adjacent cell without
moving, like the Shogi Lion.  Their movement would be without capture.

Good point, Fergus.  So I would not allow all pieces to be shifted,
possibly only Pawns.  These would represent fluctuations in the space-time
matrix.

So, a temporal jump might result in a large number of enemy 'soldiers'
to face.  But such shifts ought to be limited, or at least conditional.

Good idea about U.N.I.T. Soldiers as Pawns.  How would they move?  They
should offer a nice complement to the Daleks.

I was also thinking that pieces should also be used as in Shogi.  If
captured they become the property of the capturer.  They would then turn
into their counterpart and may be dropped on a turn.   This would
guarantee sufficient material for any win condition.

I had a musing about this particular condition, if the Doctor and Master
pieces were allowed to be captured and turned this could result in either
two Doctors or two Masters on the field.  But this would necessitate that
neither be the actual goal of the game.

And might the Doctor and Master have multiple 'lives'?

I was also thinking about the Tardis piece.  It could be a neutral piece
which could be used by either player and controlled by an off-board
piece(the key).  The players would lose and gain possesion of this key
under specific conditions.

What would be the goal of the game?

Fan-based projects are usually tolerated, as long as there is no attempt to
profit without permission or utilize protected items in an in-appropriate
manner.  Satirical approaches offer a wider venue.

But it does not hurt to ask permission.  The worst that can happen is they
can say 'No!'  I would be very surprise if the subsequent set of rules
was not accept-able.

In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to discuss and speculate.  Once the
project has been worked up, an outline can be sent to the proper persons
for any necessary approval.

***************************

The capture of the Doctor or Master could result in its owner needing to
buy it back with a particular token denoting a 'new life'.  The piece
must then be immediately place on the field on that turn, so that a player
must always maintain this particular piece on the field.

The 'new life' token can be earned during play.  It could start with one
player and shift between them as the goal pieces are ransomed.  So having
your Doctor/Master captured without a 'new life' token would mean the
loss of the game. This condition could be met as a simple checkmate, as a
player without a 'new life' token would not be able to leave their goal
piece under attack. 

I suggest that the Master player begin with this token, giving the Doctor
player the incentitive to make the first capture.

Nice idea about the variety of possible Doctors.  What could also be
included in the buy-back using the 'new life' token is the application
of generation of new potential powers for the new Doctor.  And would this
apply to the Master?.

This can be a simple list of possible 'king' types.  If they are to be
selected randomly, the number of them ought to reflect a multiple of a
common die(6).  These different 'king' types can be of a wide variety,
from the simple stepping 'king' to the powerful leaping 'emperor'.

But might this regeneration reflect any of the common Chess moves.  For
example: Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen or King.  That makes six. ;-)

But rather than a random selection of the potential types, the player
might have a list of potentials to choose from.  And each could only be
chosen once.  Such can be up to the discretion of the player, or the
opponent.

With the 'new life' token and the changing nature of the goal piece,
this game would be very interesting play.

My vote is for option A of rule 7. This is the most logical and simplest
interpretation for the potential of this game.

It will also encourage a player to cycle through the various pieces, in
order to achieve a positional advantage.  An opponent might have to be
quite wary of any opposing quantum within 'Amazon' range of their King.

But there does raise the potential of interesting positions.  For example,
a player only has the potential of one Rook and one Bishop for the two
remaining pieces.  And in this position, they might offer a checkmate as
un-defined.  The opposing King on the far rank, and the two pieces located
one on the far rank and the other on the next(classic two Rook checkmate). 
The opponent is unable to avoid a capture, though only one piece might
become the Rook both have the same potential.

I like the idea that ALL the quantum on the field must be defined before
the cycle starts again, and ALL fall back into the un-defined state when
the last one is actually moved(defined).

This allows a player to prevent an opponent from gaining advantage with
the end of a cycle by simply not moving one of their own pieces.

But I've also considered the potential that the quantum are neutral and
can be defined by either player under particular conditions.  Such as
proximity to other friendly pieces, preferably adjacent or possibly simply
defended by.  

Of course, once a player has defined all their possible pieces, the
remaining will then become the opponent's.  Yet not be readily
define-able because of the particular conditions.

Remember that the King will always be available to initiate a new cycle.

The mind wobbles.  Me like.

An un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.

Question: If all quantum are neutral, would a player be allowed to capture
them?  I would opt for this, it just would not result in the reduction of
either players' potentials.  Just in the reduction of possible quantums
of expression of the players' potentials.

As the players might have more potentials than possible quantum, the
deduction of a single remaining one might not be precise.  Meaning that it
would need to be moved to be realized.  Whether this is because of a
particular value or possible owner.

If a person 'knew' the coin, they might be able to surmise its potential
faces.  But if a coin is tossed by another person, there is also the
possibility of a two-headed or two-tailed coin. ;-)

Capturing a quantum does not reduce either players' potentials, just
reduce the possible number of expressions of these potentials on the
playing field.  By capturing a neutral quantum, a player not only reduces
their opponent's possibles but also their own.

Question:  If there are two quantum on the field and the player has two 
potential Rooks, would they both then be considered defined?  Thus ending 
the cycle rather pre-maturely.

I continue to advocate that all the quantum must be actually moved for a 
new cycle to begin.  Whether this cycle is predicated on one or both 
players.  If determined by one player, this should only apply to those 
quantum which are under their control.  This would allow the opposing 
player the opportunity to express all their potentials.  But does not 
guarantee such.

Of course, a new cycle can be initiated by the following:

1. One player has expressed all their potentials on the field.  Those 
particular quantum are re-cycled, or all the quantum are re-cycled.  (The
latter case would be very punitive for the player who has not had the 
opportunity to express all their potentials.  I would advocate the effect 
for the player's pieces, giving the opponent opportunity to gain 
advantage. This does not reduce the player's potential on the field, 
expect in the possible number of expressions.)

2. All the quantum have been defined and all quantum are recycled. (This 
might mean that the players have additional potentials in hand.  This 
could also be initiated by the capture of a remaining quantum when both 
players still have potential in hand.)

I think that there might be a mis-understanding about the intention of my
remarks.  My advocation of certain forms of play are not demands for
compliance.

The whole concept of variants within the Chess game is that anything is
actually possible. Of course, the players would need to agree on the exact
form that they intend to use during a particular game.

Here is where mnemonic labels might aid in relating particular rules.  For
example:  If players want all the quantum to be re-cycled, regardless of
the determing condition, it might be called a Full Reset.  A single
player's piece being the only ones re-cycled might be called a Partial
Reset.  A Reset determined by deduction might be called, you guessed it,
Deductive.  And one by an actual move of the determing piece might be
called Actual.  And one which is determined by either player called a
Player.  And one determined by the entire field of quantum called a
Field.

So, now players could know what rules were being applied if one desired a
Full Field Actual Reset, a Partial Player Deductive Reset, etc. ;-)

Is a Partial Field Reset, whether Actual or Deductive, possible?

One in-game difference between a Deductive Reset and an Actual Reset is
that the player may desire to utilize the determining piece for a possible
capture.  Also, the potential capture of this un-defined piece may have an
impact on the game, both positional and strategic.

What happens if the quantum has been reduced to a single piece and the
player has only a single potential?  With the Deductive Reset, the quantum
would never be expressed and remain in an un-defined state.  Of course, the
quantum can be considered to have the effect of the possible piece on the
field, it would only threaten its potential cells and never be actually
moved to them.

So when the situation warrants, the quantum might remain a quantum although
it has moved as a specific piece.  This will be applicable if players have
a single quantum, either apiece or shared, regardless of the number of
potentials in hand.  The quantum would be moved as the desired piece and
yet never be replaced by such.

So if a player has a Knight, Bishop and Rook as their potentials and only
one quantum in which to express these, the quantum would continuously have
the power of an Amazon.  Interesting.

'Quantum' is a term actually put forth by the author of this page. 
'Bario' is the name of the game.  The only other name given to the
pieces is 'un-defined pieces'.

As to whether the 'un-defined pieces' are owner-specified.  This appears
to be open to interpretation.  Granted that if the 'un-defined pieces'
are neutral there will need to be conditionals for the player to use when
taking possession.  But this is merely a matter of determination.

The author of this article has stated that they are not fully aware of all
the rules governing this game. Does anyone know of an alternative source
for this game?

Gary, are you laying claim to this game?  Are you advocating that all must
adhere to your speculations as to the possible nature in play within this
game?

Then I am permitted to actually move the quantum to defined it?  Many
thanks.

I have put forth a possible conditional for the use of neutral quantum. 
This could be their proximity to friendly pieces, meaning adjacent.  If a
piece was adjacent both friend and foe, it might remain un-defined or its
possesion might be determined by the surrounding material(number and/or
value).

This would create an interesting dynamic in play as quantum may pass from
one player to the other.  And players would attempt to control possession
of the quantum, while expressing their potentials when possible.  And
capturing of a quantum would still be a viable option as removing a
possible position from an opponent may be more desire-able than allow the
piece to remain on the field.

Under this rule, the quantum in the initial set-up would be under the
control of the player on that side of the field because of the proximity
to the Pawns.  Without any opposing pieces adjacent, the player is free to
express their potentials fully.

And this form of play would make a Field Reset very interesting.  As now
the player might express their pieces on other positions, creating a
possibly devastating game.  Imagine that such a Reset might actually
result in a checkmate.  If the Reset is the result of the attacked
player's last quantum, they might not be happy with the Deductive form.
;-)

The original graphics for this page showed all the quantum as similar. 
They have since been changed to differentiate them. 
Right...wrong...best...worst.... At this point it appears to be a matter
of preference.

The difference between a Field and Player Reset: In a Field Reset all the
quantum on the field must be defined.   In a Player Reset, once one player
has defined all their potential quantum(there may still be other un-defined
quantum on the field).

I actually opt for the Field Reset.  It seems to comply with the stated
rules.  The same with the Actual determination of the quantum.  Thus my
preferred condition would be Full Field Actual Reset.

I would also opt for the quantum as neutral.  This would greatly increase
the level of difficulty in the play.  All that needs to be determined is
some form of conditionals by which a player may take possession of a
particular quantum.  

I have been working on a very intricate formula, involving not only the
adjacent pieces to the quantum but also including the conditions of cells
beyond.  Granted that this form of play may not appeal to most, but I
always look for ways to increase the difficulty in quantify a game rather
than making it easier.

And the author of this page states that the inventor intended for this
game to be the most difficult on Earth. ;-)

I think that I will concentrate on Bario for now.  Thanks for the attempt
at distraction.

With your statement that a neutral game would result in a possible large
number of quantum located around the King.  It would be necessary that the
King is a weighted factor in the determination of which quantum will be
utilize by the player.  Thus the closer your King to a quantum, there is
an exponential factor that you will increase the opportunity to take
possession of such.

The proximity of Pawns could also play a part in determining the
possession of a quantum.  A simple rule might be to state that a quantum
located on a file behind a player's Pawn(regardless of distance) would
have an added factor.  This would increase the opportunity to gain
possession of quantum on the player's side of the field.

As pieces are delevoped, their proximity to quantum will also have an
effect.

Here's a simplified formula for determining use of a neutral quantum.

Factors
(The following values are tentative.)

+1 for each friendly piece adjacent
-1 for each enemy piece adjacent
+1 for each friendly piece defending
-1 for each enemy piece attacking.
+1 if on file behind a friendly Pawn
-1 if on file behind an enemy Pawn
+10 if adjacent friendly King
-10 if adjacent enemy King
+5 if friendly King two cells away
-5 if enemy King two cells away.
+1 if friendly King three cells away
-1 if enemy King three cells away.

(The following factors are applicable if players are concerned about
the diagonal pattern of their Bishops and can be weighted accordingly
to deter Bishops occupying the same diagonal pattern.)

+n if piece is to be a Bishop and 
	there is no friendly Bishop on that particular diagonal pattern
-n if piece is to be a Bishop and 
	there is a friendly Bishop on that particular diagonal patteern

There are many other possible factors to consider when evaluating the
potential of a quantum.  All factors should be considered for each
quantum.


Conclusion:

If quantum . . .
	> 0 belongs to player
	< 0 belongs to opponent
	= 0 remains undefined

*********************************************

It may be suggested that whatever values are utilized that they should be
fairly uniform for easy recall, and that the result be a whole number
rather than a possible fraction.

Another factor which might be used to determine a neutral quantum is the
number of potentials which each player has in hand.  This will allow one
with the larger amount more opportunity to express them.  It can also be a
decisive factor in the end-game when the players might be reduced to Kings
and a single quantum.

This will also have an effect during the mid-game, allowing players to
utilize pieces which might be rather remote from the fray.  Although the
number of quantum may be reduced by capture the number of potentials will
continue to have a factor on the field.

Thus,

+1 for each potential in hand by player
-1 for each potential in hand by opponent

This will also have an effect during the opening as the players will
express their potential in a rather even fashion, attempting to avoid the
loss of one of their quantum.  A player will be able to express several
potentials before the reduction will be a detriment to the initial set-up.

It is necessary to utilize similar tokens to indicate these neutral quantum
in a real-world game of Bario.  May I suggest red Checkers, they are quite
apparent on the field.  The players then put their pieces on these tokens
as they move them at the turn.  So when a Reset occurs, the players can
quickly remove their pieces but leave the quantum on the field.

Most neutral quantum will be fairly easy to determine which player has
control. There will only be a few instances where 'long' calculation
will be required, and this will often only occur during some of the
mid-game and the end-game.  

Quantum which are equal to 0 would remain un-defined.  Players would have
to perform moves in order to gain control(remember that the proximity of
the King is one of these factors).

The difference in number of pieces that the players have in hand will be a
fairly easily calculated factor.  And any advantage in the exchange will
allow the player opportunity.

Gary's suggested form of play is quite interesting, rather than the
players having potential pieces in hand they could hold owner-specified
quantum(Checkers, red for White and black for Black).  Pawns and Kings are
owner-defined, the remaining pieces in their standard set-up are all of a
neutral color.  Thus players can take control of any of these neutral
pieces, regardless of rank, under specified conditions.  When a Reset
occurs, rather then the pieces, the quantums are returned to their
specific player.  This might be called Reverse Bario.

In Reverse Bario, when a Pawn promotes the player will gain an
owner-specified quantum with the neutral piece.

Upon further reflection, it would not be necessary for the chess pieces to
be of neutral color in Reverse Bario.  There need be the rule that only 
the player may move their King, their Pawns and any other piece occupying 
one of their quantum(and, regardless of color, all pieces other than 
Kings and Pawns may be claimed with a quantum under specific conditions).  
It just may be difficult to visualize the state of the field without much 
practice.  But this should not be impossible.  And this would mean that 
players need not obtain any special equipment to play a real-world game.

Or they could simply paint the neutral set themselves with model paint.  I 
suggest bright green, this should make the color of the Checkers(quantum) 
stand out.  Plastic Chess and Checker Sets often can be found for only a 
dollar or two. So that would not be a huge investment in material.

Yes, the dynamics of Reverse Bario could be quite cruel.  But it could be
said that a player who left a powerful piece in a position of
vulnerability before a Reset deserves to have it taken from them.

One problem with looking at a game merely from its potential and not from
its actual play is that often its negative aspects are over-rated.  A
designer must take into account not only the tactics of the players but
also the overall possible strategy.

With examples, we can point out potential pit-falls but this does not
necessitate that every player will succumb.  Just as the Fool's Mate is a
potential in FIDE Chess.

And the advantage after a Reset would not be the sole propriety of one
player.  Both players will have the potential for this advantage, given
the opportunity.

Question: Would a player holding the last quantum before a Reset play it? 
Or would they allow the last neutral piece to be captured?

This would be considered an area for strategy.  Keeping a quantum in hand
to be able to control the Reset, or holding a neutral piece in reserve. 
Imagine the small battles over the control of the Reset.

Many submissions need only be presented in TXT format.  With the proper
spacing and font sizes, they can be placed in a standard HTML page with
the PRE command.

I would not recommend freely allowing the upload of graphics, since this
can seriously eat up webspace(and there are individuals who will abuse
this privilege).  Instead, the potential graphics could be demonstrated
with ASCII diagrams.  And suggestions for the potential graphics, or the
web adress of such(usually the authors own homepage, or some other off
site), could be included for the editor.  Or the graphics might be sent
upon request by the editor in a ZIP file, and in a specific format(such
as GIF).  The submission should have the file names of the graphics for
easy reference.

The limit might be the actual memory size of the graphics submitted.  This
would only apply to any new graphics.  So the more existing(on-site and
off-site) graphics which are referenced, the more individual and specific
graphics may be submitted.  This would allow the author to decide the
number and size of the individual files.

And this maximum memory size could be applicable to the entire webpage
submission.  Exactly what is the largest variant webpage on this site? 
Including any that is multi-page.

Dale,

May I suggest the following designation for a few of the un-named pieces.

Hippogriff = 1,1,2 leaper
Wyvern = 1,2,2 leaper

These are the classic names for these two 3D Chess pieces.  The first
given by Kogbetliantz, although he eventually extended the leap of this
piece in order to remove its being bound to a single diagonal pattern. 
The second was given by V. R. Parton.

I have a small observation.  Shouldn't the diagonal(E) translation at the
central rosette involve all the cells of similar color which touch
edgewise on the level?  This would correspond to the triagonal(C)
translations to the next level.  Which are indentical in a cubic field.

The only restriction that I would give to diagonal(E) movement is that a
piece must translate through opposing edges of the cell when crossing it.

Another observation:

The orthogonal(F) translation around the central rosette involves passing
through adjoining faces of the cells.  Might slides only involve passing
through the opposing faces of the cells?

The orthogonal piece could still step around the center.  It just might
not be permitted to make such a continuous slide.  

Just as Fa1 is orthogonally(F) linked to Hh1, might not Fd1 be
orthogonally to He1?

Un-capturing Pawns would create an interesting dynamic.  For instance,
forcing the opponent to make a reversed two-step move by performing a
reversed en passant.

Might not a player move a power piece to the far rank and demote it to a
Pawn?

And by putting their King in check, they could force the opponent to
remove the threat.  Obviously, there must be the possibility of removing
such a threat.

I'm beginning to really like this variant.

How's this for a rule:

No Pawn may be un-captured on its player's first rank.

Does anyone have others?

In actuality, placing a King in a check position which the opponent cannot
 remove in the next move would be a loss for the player moving the King. 
 Consider that in a normal flow of events, the checking player would not
 previously have the opposing King under threat or it would have already
 been a won game.

So in this game, checkmate would still be a loss.  There just would be
 little restriction to placing a King in a checked position.

The King would become a piece which the opponent needs to avoid, the
 player could use the King to influence the opponent's moves.  Removing
 the check of an opposing King would be mandatory.  But the player must
 consider that the opponent must have the ability to remove this check.

So placing a King in threat against a Pawn on its initial position would
 be illegal since that piece would not have the option to remove the
 threat.   Placing the other pieces into initial positions which limit
 their mobility would take up most of the tactics in this game.  For
 example: the Rooks in their initial position would not be forced to move
 if their Pawns are also in position.

Rather than controlling the center of the field, players might attempt to
 control the outer cells.

'Éclaire' n'a pas la même signification que la foudre, qui est la
signification exacte du 'blitz'.

Est-ce que c'est simplement une expression Français-Canadienne?

Although the term 'blitz' has developed into a particular form of
attack(a shortening of the term 'blitzkrieg'), the original German is
'lightning'.  Which answered the question for Vanessa, a self-described
translator, about its possible meaning in French.  Who was most probably
interested in the etymology of the word.

'Attaque éclaire' translates to 'light attack'.  The meaning of
'light' being not about weight but about vision.  'Éclaire' could 
probably be better translated as 'lit'.

'Tournoi de blitz' = Lightning Tournament.  ;-)

Doug,

Technically, you might be right.  But are those conditions applicable to
each and every game?

Resignation could be considered merely a recognition by that player of the
potential of eventual checkmate.

Good point about the discovered check with that particular rule.

I used a little programming trick to get this to work.  I'll send you the
implementation so that you can admire it.  But basically, I used the
Zillions engine itself to perform most of the function.

As to the shape of the Knight leap, I opted for the simple 'L' pattern. 
This means that Pawns orthogonally adjacent to the Knight's position are
captured using this rule.  This would continue to allow Pawns to threaten
the Knight un-opposed.  But if there is a big demand to include any
adjacent Pawn, I can implement this in a variant.

This implementation is still in need of some serious play-testing.

Peter,

I tried to send you a copy of the implementation.  The e-mails are
returned as undeliverable.  Is your address listed on this site active?

With the Sho able to spawn Pawns, and Pawns able to promote to any other
piece, there really does not appear that drops are needed.

Unless the author has an idea for the graphics of these pieces, I would be
happy to give it a go.  Maybe something symbolic and oriental, without
using Kanji.  How about Katakana?

The drawish-ness of 3D Chess is not predicated upon the turn order but upon
the material necessary to form a mating position.  With linear pieces it
can take a larger number of pieces compared to 2D to accomplish this task.
 And with the potentially large number of moves to complete the average
game, any first-move advantage is almost imperceptible.

Some 3D Chess developers have introduced an extremely powerful piece which
could make a checkmate by it lonesome.  But this does not guarantee a mate
since this piece might not survive to the end-game or, if created through
promotion, might never appear.

Planar pieces solve this problem by reducing the overall number of pieces
on the field.

But this does not mean that linear pieces should not be utilized in 3D. 
But like the Ferz and Wazir in 2D, they may find themselves reduced in
value and application as minor pieces in 3D.

Restricting the movement of the King has been tried in several games. And
this does increase the potential for mate, or at the least stalemate. But
this form of restriction has not been totally accepted by the entire 3D
Chess community, which often feels that such is anathema to the purpose of
of a 3D game.  In other words, why expand the potential of the playing
field then begin truncating the movement of the pieces?

The primary complaint of introducing more the powerful planar pieces to
the game is that they are much more difficult to visualize not only during
their single turn movement but to extrapolate their position several moves
into the game.  Some have even suggested that the human mind is just not
capable to properly calculate such vast potentials.

I have a better opinion of the human mind. Given the proper training and
familiarity with any subject, it is more than up to the task. Of course,
this may mean that the individuals who play 3D Chess in the future may not
be able to do anything else. Not much different than some of the current
FIDE Grandmasters. ;-)

I personally believe that pushing sleeping trolls over, or 'trolling', is
a cruel and rather childish act.  And besides it has nothing to do with SRC
since the use or participation of trolls is strictly forbidden by the 1987
Articles of the Tongalese SRC Convention.

It's not that trolls have low IQs which cause the problems, it just that
when they become fixated.  This can result in them endlessly staring at
such things as moving fan blades, constantly digging in their noses, or
humming the same tune over and over and over....

But SRC still commemorates their past participation by tournament
audiences spontaneously breaking into rousing rounds of 'Pop Goes the
Weasel'.  The humming of such by a player can result in severe
penalization.

Just worked up a Zillions implementation and let the engine run through a
game with Maximum Strength, mid-range Variety and 3 minute Time.

The game ended with Blue winning in less than 40 turns.

Some observations:  The Gauntlet gives the dynamic of the 'castle' of
XiangQi.  The Missiles were not brought into play until well within the
mid-game, and it appears that the first to use them will lose them. 
Neither side brought their Colonels into play during the entire game but
this might be just a simple idiosyncrasy of the Zillions engine.

I'll be running at least a dozen more games at various settings before I
make my final conclusions.