Comments by jean-louiscazaux

This page, and all which are related, is very well done.
I love the Griffon with its asymetrical move which makes it so
interesting.
I use it in my variants and I would like to mention that I also use a
 'half-griffon', that I name a 'Ship' in my TAMERLANE 2000 and GIGACHESS
The Ship is a kind of vertical-only Griffon, a nice (not too strong) piece

for fork attack. Also asymetrical, like a Ship which can not easily
return
against the wind...
The Ship is between the Bishop and the Rook in term of power.

I was pleased to read the previous comment by M.Howe. I totally share his
point of view for an alternate array similar to GrandChess (or my own 
Shako). It is what I call 'Decimal Omega' and proposed into my 
'War of the Worlds'.
see http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/warworlds.html
The specific board being like a commercial signature for Omega Chess, 
I don't think that there is a single chance that either M.Howe or me
being listened by the inventors of Omega. Too bad !

Thanks to Ben for his comments.
True, the photograph is dark, but it is to better see the details on the
white pieces.
This is a home-made set (mere wood, painted and vernished) and a home-made
board. It is a 11x11 board not a 11x10, because it was made for my
variant,Tamerlane 2000. 
This equipment was made in 1978, a long time ago now, woah, so long I love
chess variants !
As a matter of fact, this is the first variant I designed. Look its
history on my pages : http://www.chez.com/cazaux/tamerlane2.htm
A last comment: 10x10 should not be that difficult to get : it is the
regular board for International Checkers, even though people plays
Draughts in US (a much simpler game), with Internet, Int Checkers board
should be easily available. 
If the reader gets such a board, may I recommend him to try Shako, with
Xiangqi Cannons joining the regular FIDE's set.

Bad yourself dear James !
This page is a catalog of gif, not a manual of strategy, I wonder how come
you misunderstood ?

Fergus, I see that we are equally minded. I, also, feel attracted by
gathering east and west (that's the driver of my Shako, check it out).
Also, I had proposed to use the 'Vao' long time ago in my Gigachess
:http://chessvariants.com/large.dir/gigachess.html
I called it 'crossbow', you call it 'arrow'. Les grands esprits se
rencontrent !

I have also noticed that apparent original Bishop in Senterej. But, like
Ivan Derzhanski, I agree that this is apparent only.
The Senterej move is most likely the regular Shatranj rule. I remember
that in Murray's you can find several other examples where the old
'Alfil' is given an aslant '3 steps' move.
Since, there is no other Senetrej source confirming your 'Saba' move, we
better be careful. 
Of course, you may argue that we don't have the proof either that the
Alfil in Senterej was exactly like in Shatranj. 
True, but it is not the right way to make History. We should explain and
select the most probable version with all elements we have. And the
regular Shatranj move is the most probable, just for what Ivan explained,
and because the tight relationships between Arabs and this African region
in history (slave trade for instance).
The very original feature of Senterej is the mobilization phase(Werera),
which is a local evolution of the Ta'biya process invented by the Arabs
to speed up the old game (other example is found in Burma, see
http://www.chez.com/cazaux/sittuyin.htm)

I think that this page desserves a re-writing. I do not like the idea to
let people think that a different move existed somewhere, here in
Ethiopia.
It is just the too much frequent process for which legend is transformed
into history.

Regarding Chess Variants, we have a responsability here. Please, amend
this text, put all necessary caution, don't let uniniated people believe
that this move existed in Ethiopia. I know it is frustating but we don't
have the right to call that faeric piece a Saba.

I like these 2 new pieces a lot. 
The only point I regret is the use of new names for old pieces, sword for
pawn, advisor for bishop, and for faeric pieces as well. Those have
already too many names, why creating new ones that just add confusion ?

I had never seen that the chessvariants.com had pages in French. Nice! I
appreciate very much Hans'effort. Just few comments, no offense meant,
just because everything can always be improved:
* the accents (é,è,ê,à) are integral part of our language and they should
be used, including for capital letters (even though many Frenchmen wrongly
believe that accented capital letters are not correct)
* more important for Chess players : the Queen is normally called the
'Dame'. 'Reine' can be understood and is sometimes used, but 'Dame'
is really the 'official' one.
* I never heard 'Évêque' for the 'Bishop' when talking about Chess.
'Évêque' is the correct translation when talking about church. When
talking about Chess, only 'Fou' is correct.
Hope this will help.

Hello. I've made a page dedicated to Hiashatar on my web site (and another
one for Shatar). Considering the great emphasis given to Horse both in
Shatar and in Mongolian nomadic way of life, I guess that the Horse is
simply not affected by the Bodyguard power. That's why there is no
specific rule.
Also, remember that it is forbidden to mate the King with the Horse in
Shatar. All this is consistent.
See : http://www.chez.com/cazaux/hiashatar.htm

See a compilation of those wonderful Mongolian Shatar sets on :
http://www.chez.com/cazaux/shatar.htm

Ivan is perfectly right. In his History of Chess, Murrays cites Mr Plowden,
who was British Consul in Abyssinia in 1868 and was saying about the
'Pheels or Bishop' (we write Fils) :
'This piece moves obliquely, like our Bishop, but can only move or cover
three squares, including its own; ...'
The SABA = ALFIL, definitely. Sorry. We got to call otherwise a 3 square
leaper.

I disagree. Xiangqi should be played over a grid, not squares. That
probably explains the Horse and the Elephant move. On squares, it's more
natural to jump over an intermediate piece. On a grid, the intermediate
piece blocks the way. Then, since there is no long diagonal moves, there
is no need in checkering.
However, I agree that replacing the XQ piece by figurative pieces
(Staunton or other) could be useful for popularizing the game in the West.
But this has nothing to do with the board.

Viktor is right, twice. The Chinese name of the game is Dou Shou Qi meaning
'Game of fighting animals'.
And, true, there is a mistake in the given rules : a trap does not affect
at all a friendly piece. It only affects enemy pieces.

This choice of letter is not a big deal. It was the choice of the author of
the game to call the new piece a Nuclea. Feel free to call it a Bomb if
you like. Bishop is a Fool in French you know, so the names of piece have
demonstrated some flexibility.
Btw, Knight (which does not start with a N, no?(humour)) is Cavalier in
French, so we use a C.
And, it took me few seconds to get what ICBM meant...

Why it takes so long to describe all this? Too much redundancy in this page, sorry.

This game is nothing but original. The so-called Falcon is just Camel+Zebra from fairy chess. I used a similar Buffalo (Camel+Zebra+Knight) in my CVs and many inventors did in these pages on this website.

Also good to know is that a certain Karl Schulz from Austria invented a Falcon-Hunter Chess in 1943 where the Falcon is moving fw like a Bishop and bw like a Rook. This variant is reported in many CV books like Parton's, Boyer's or closer to us, DB Pritchard's. Basically, I think that patenting a CV is a very bad idea because you just encourage players to go away. What is the goal of the inventor, what does he want to protect really ? And if the patent is unavoidable it should be preceded by a serious anteriority research. This patent has no serious claim, it's flawed.

Having done the excercice myself few years ago, I know what kind of work it
represents. I can only say this: I LOVE YOUR DESIGNS, much more than mine,
actually ! Wonderful, congratulations !
Jean-Louis

Thanks for the compliment about my website.
To be honnest I should say that the photograph is not mine. I borrowed it
on a Japanese site I can't find again.
Also, I am not the author of this current page on www.chessvariants.org, I
think I would remember. Someone is using my name, ah ah, Sherlock, who is
he ?
Jean-Louis Cazaux