Comments by zzo38computer

Another variant, instead of making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer, you may specify that you want to capture the Immobilizer with an immobilized piece, and the Immobilizer's owner specifies how this will be done, and in this case only the immobilization is ignored. You said Immobilizer seem too powerful, this is another way to make it weak, and in some cases may add some additional complications to the strategy (especially if there are multiple captures possible in this way).

I have a suggestion: To add a regular expression search of link description to the "mainquery.php", possibly called "regexplinkdesc". I would find this useful; others who use the advanced search (Tony Quintanilla, perhaps?) might also find it useful. (I already find "regexplinktext" useful, but this would be useful too.)

Also, there is no icon for the "Shop" type (which claims to be an unknown type, although queries for such type work OK); this should be looked at too.

O, one more thing: Link descriptions should be allow to changed in member submission edit index information form.

Other possibility of kings: (d) If you have king in hand you are not allowed to move pieces which are on the board. (e) If you have king in hand you must drop it on any turn if you are able to do so.

Another rule, if you want to use, is: Not escape check by capturing your own king.

Actually even if you do not necessarily consider different kind of piece just because they belong to the other player, there is a way to consider them different kind of pieces in some cases, such as in Chinese Chess you can say the 象 is restricted to one side of the board and the 相 is restricted to the other side of the board, the 卒 moves one way and 兵 moves in other direction, and so on.

Instead of king with unlimited calories, you may play the subvariant with king having 226 Cal, and castling does not use up any energy of king and rooks, and that player with king 0 Cal loses unless his opponent's king has only 1 Cal.

Sorry, I do not understand these rules very well. Could you please clarify?

"All killed pieces from Predators` side may be transform to friendly Aliens`pieces (the pieces infected by the Aliens become as they, f.exp. Alien Bishop, Alien Rook, Alien Knight, Aliens Pawns and so on). To transform pieces in Alien's can only Aliens Kings." -- I do not completely understand that last part. I assume an "Aliens Kings" is an Amazon but I still don't understand this rule very well. Does it mean that the pieces can only be replaced on the board as black pieces if captured by an Amazon?

"It is not obligatory and depend from desire of Aliens." -- Does this mean if Black captures a White piece, he can optionally place a black piece of the same kind on the positions specified but gets only one chance to do so? (A variant of variant, may be that it is obligatory? In such a case, if there is no legal position, then you are not allowed to make that capture.)

"Object of the game for both players is to checkmate the opponent`s all Kings." -- But, White only has one King, and Black has no Kings. From the Setup description though, it seem that the Amazons (known as "Aliens Kings", but I think should be called Amazons for less confusion) count as Kings for this rule? Even if so, you should clarify it.

"Pawns from Predators side may be promoted only to killed pieces from own side" -- Does it mean a captured piece, what happen if if it is transformed to friendly Aliens pieces, and what abouts pawns on other side?

"The difference in rankings between two players usually determines the hadicap. In this game handicap may be: 1 Alien, 2 Aliens, 3 Aliens and 4 Aliens." -- If this refers to the number of pieces Black starts with, it contradicts "In the first phase the Black take turns to drop pieces (Al) on the board first, second or third row on any square. But not in one row diagonal or ortogonal." since you cannot place four pieces in three rows under these conditions. But maybe I misunderstood what this rule means. (You also misspelled "handicap", and various other words.)

(I also think the notations should be each piece one letter only; but that isn't the point of the above, and is simply my opinion.)

If you want to make symmetric game (I prefer symmetric game generally): Each player has one angel at queenside and one devil at kingside. (Or maybe it is better other way around; I have not tried.)

(This is very simple subvariant and so I am not making its own file, unless someone requests or if there is a lot more to write about such things than the comments.)

broken link

One possible symmetric varant: Use all pieces and set up as FIDE chess. The king (one of the two T-rex each player has) is automatically considered general. Place checkers underneath to represent a T-rex having been hit once.

(Alternatively, use rooks to represent T-rex so that they can be flipped once hit?)

I prefer symmetric game, although I like your pawn promotion rule.

An idea I have is making another chess variant involving letter of alphabet, like this one, using two sets of Scrabble tiles (one per player). So, that tell you how many of each is available, and eventually you may place all of them, but not all at once; promotion is only to pieces not yet placed. You could use the numbers on the tiles for cost or something like that, and you could use the blank tiles as neutral pieces or just omit them completely, and allow face-down pieces to be used as pieces not yet moved and opponent cannot recognize them yet! If you are using the two Scrabble sets you can have the board 15x30.

If you want to play game such that using standard FIDE pieces (no extra queen/etc), then, you use same setup, but pawns are now allowed to promote only to pieces not on the board (other than king and pawn), and this includes bishops.

I like the ideas but perhaps it would be much better with cards? Then you can have hidden information, and you could guess what cards opponent holds by what you hold, memory of what has been played, bluffing, etc