Comments by ironedsandwich

seonoo, you have miscalculated. the Chess (FIDE) army contains only one  Queen, so (5+3+3)+8+9=39. However, Advisors cross (and block) paths so often they are hardly worth anything more than Elephants, and Jocly's Shako rates Cannons at 4.9. Splitting the difference for Cannons (I they are weaker on 8.5x8.5 board, ((0.75x5)+(1x2)+(1x2)+(2x2)+(4.4x2)+(5x2))-1.5 for King weakness=29.05, but I don't know what the 3.75 is for.

when people get bored of how repetitive and figured-out FIDE Chess is (like Bobby Fischer did) this along with a few others has a possibility of replacing it. Elephants and Cannons both bring new strategy elements such as a sort of no extra development necessary, and Cannons add a new edge to attacks. Cannons can also artificially pin Kings. Cannons and Kings cannot checkmate bare Kings, but a Cannon, King and Knight can.

Elephants are a third minor piece (though Bishops are stronger than before), which I prefer since minor piece feels like a more useful term and minor pieces feel more like a currency than a coincidence. Also, Elephants (and Cannons) developing naturally doesn't interfere with any other piece development, and developing Elephants attacks pawns while being weaker than Knights. I could probably go on to talk about some openings which are playable and some which aren't but this is getting long.

I'm not rating the page poor, but the game (maybe less if there was one).

based on Ralph Betza's ideas on Colourboundness and material value and not counting Black's King or Maharajah's King's move,  

Black (FIDE)'s army is worth 39.4 Pawns. Without promotion, it's 32.60 plus initial double step for new pawns it's 32.85 (estimation for lameness of double step used was fnD = 1/18 of a Crab, then / 7 for Initial)
the Maharajah is worth a cringeworthy 9.75 Pawns, estimating a Bishop - Ferz on an 8x8 board to be worth 2.40 Pawns.

White can force mate from turn 1.

I have another suggestion for the Queen piece, which is probably less interesting than the Jelly but more related to Bakeries: the Quiche. If a Rook is a Wazir-Rider, this is a Drunk-Elephant-Rider: may move as a forward or sideways Rook, or as a Bishop (frlRB). It is called a Quiche since it could be a shortened 'Queeshop'. This piece is about 1.5 pawns under a Queen (Queen - Half Bishop).

Pros (vs Jelly)
1. less confusing checkmate scenarios, if forward or sideways.
2. unless you're Heston Blumenthal, you probably shouldn't bake jelly.
3. same development ideas as Queens.
Cons (vs Jelly)
1. no other Camel or Zebra movers (Jelly)
2. trouble forcing mate alone (Quiche)
3. arbitrary, boring move (Quiche)
4. Queens completely swallow (Quiche) (metaphor). 

Another undecided factor is piece order: I suggest Pancake, Doughnut, Waffle from the Rook squares in.

So, I was sort of thinking of a Spherical Waffle. I see.

However, my point about Pawn protection still stands, although having an already fien... finch... thing empowered Bishop, C-Name and central Waffle placement  may make this army a bit too similar to the Colourbound Clobberers.

From playing this on ChessV, I have a few thoughts on strategies.

Firstly, 2 orthogonally adjacent Knights are excellent fortresses, and when combined with 1-2 Lions they can easily hide compound pieces to be brought out later for late game scenarios, where said compound will work well (especially Queens and Cardinals).

Another is that despite speed of getting around the board Wizards are weak, probably the weakest non-pawn piece, since they only have 3 (Ralph Betza ) half-knights, they are quite bad at creating mini-fortresses, and unlike Lions and Knights they are colourbound.

Opening, perhaps after e/f pawn advances, with Wizard to their c/h square is a good idea since it frees a Rook, develops your Wizard, blocks opposing Wizards and protects the opposite central pawn. Also, apparently developing minor pieces first is a good idea.

As often said, sliders are considerably more powerful on larger boards, but Knights seem as strong as / stronger than Bishops in this game.

on another note, funny notation for Wizard is LF, not CF. Funny Notation Camels are L (weirdly, since there isn't a capital C)

Of the experimental armies of CwDA, most work well but the Cylindrical Cinders doesn't. It can win the exchange Rook-type pieces on turn 1: if Fabulous FIDEs, Nutty Knights, or Fearful Fairies it can win Rooks without exchanging them (unless i'm missing something). Besides, they can't develop to protect pawns.

My suggestion is that they switch places with the Bishops, since as BDs show corner squares work well with Bishop-ish pieces, and all Bishops (so far, including Bakery Bombers regardless of the Queen) are protected, and because like Knights they usually develop to protect the opposite pawns.

according to http://history.chess.free.fr/hiashatar.htm Bodyguards may only capture 1 square diagonally.

I have accidentally published a Chess Problem before finishing it (and was going to delete anyway). How do I remove it?

Nutty Knights to me seem more powerful than Fabulous FIDEs, but the known theory of the FIDEs and the unfamiliarity of the Charging mechanic makes the Nutty Knights complicated. Also, Fibnifs should stronger than Knights. 

Players well experienced with Chess with Different Armies are likely Nutty Knights preferable, but players new to Chess with Different Armies would probably prefer the Fabulous FIDEs. This seems to be the case with the Clobberers and the Rookies as well, to a lesser extent.

One thing I don't get though, is why would Charging Rooks be a miniscule amount stronger than normal ones?

In my opinion the ideal new piece placement for basic 10x10 games is between Rook and Knight, because that way the opening theory basics are used, but with fewer annoying free rook captures.

Also, the King's Counsellor evasion move is a good idea due to their power (slightly above a Cardinal, Jesters are around the power of a Bishop).

Viziers are Wazirs, assuming this goes by Exotic Chess (Ed Friedlander's Applet). Archdeacons, Alfil Knights and Dabbaba Knights have identical names (and moves) and because you can change the board shape 
 this variant was likely made using exotic chess.
 Bishop + Ferz doesn't make sense anyway.

in reply to J Andrew Lipscomb's comment: thanks, I didn't understand because the page comments that Dragons can efficiently block Queens, but this could just be because Alibabas have restricted Queen-shaped moves.

 The second part was there apparently (literal), I just missed it.

idea for the Queen piece: Jelly (although that isn't baking, it's still confectionery). It moves as a Zebra, a Camel, or a Alfil. Funny Notation: JLA, Alfil to empower it and because there is no Funny Notation Y or E.

If this is underpowered its Zebra and Camel moves can be Cylindrical.

If the Alfil move is Cylindrical, this piece is too powerful on turn 1.

The way of taming a royal queen was an excellent idea.

Also, do Dragons block Queens as Alibabariders usually move, or can they block Queens on the squares they leap over (As a semi-leaping Queen)?

On one other note, why promote your pawns to Knights rather than Unicorns?

A chess variant with a B+N Queen replacement isn't Janus Chess: Janus Chess has two additional pieces, B+Ns named Januses (plural Janus: likely incorrect) between the Rooks and the Knights and a regular Queen. (they also have pawns above them)

1 Bishop per side is usually a bad thing in my opinion, unless the game is intended for slowness or at least to be less agressive than FIDE. Same goes for all 1-way colourbound pieces (Camels, Omega Chess Wizards, Root 50s, etc, but not Dabbabahs or similar.) Shogi's drop rule helps though.

In the shown Helpmate problem something unusual occurs (impossible in FIDE): White Pawn may promote to a Rook or a Knight, but not to a Queen or Bishop: doing so would be placing yourself in check. (if White to play)