Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Playing Gaugamela Chess against Stockfish is insanely great!  At first, it confuses the engine because of the new opening possibilities. 

I believe this page should be ready for review. 

The author, Florin Lupusoru, has updated this page.

Ok. Done. Let's hope that everyone is happy now. 

I would swap the Queen with the d-Rook. But it is your game.

Do you mean something like this?

This is the best I can do. I still want to keep the Knights on the right side to match the battle formation at Gaugamela. 

Rooks are supposed to stay out of the game until there are (half-)open files, and they should wait with advancing from the back rank until sufficiently many minors have been traded to make that safe. In orthodox Chess a Rook ends up next to the King after castling, and you then develop it further by sliding along the back rank to the place it is useful. (As you are usuall not going to open the f-file and weaken the King's Pawn shield.) It would not be any different here, except that you can skip the castling. The Knight on g1, OTOH, cannot move before you first weaken the Pawn fortress. Queens are not dependent  on open files, as they can slip through the Pawn barrier diagonally, and a move along the back rank would just waste a tempo. So a Queen on g1/b8 would also not be ideal, altough it can at least get out without compromising the Pawn structure.

But it is not clear to me what the 'perfection' is. The 'Fortress Chess' setup looks much more convenient. A Knight on g1/b8 is awkwardly placed; it seems much better to swap those with the Rooks on e1/d8. And the Bishops in the original also seem more easy to develop.

A Rook, or a Queen placed next to a King will ensure it will stay out of the game for a long time. I believe that the Knights are perfectly placed next to the Kings, and also matching the historical battle mentioned above. I hope, you remember that the famous battle of Gaugamela was decided by the King, and the Companion Cavalry, placed on the right flank.

Regarding the Bishops, I have to thing about that. But if I place the Queen on b1, wouldn't it be too unprotected against so many Pawns?  

I wouldn't start an article with a large diagram of another Chess variant.

I have to agree with you here, and I'll make the changes right away. 

I wouldn't start an article with a large diagram of another Chess variant. The diagram of the initial setup should be the dominant eye-catching feature of an article. At the stage of the introduction it is not of much interest to the reader what exactly the setup of Fortress Chess was, other than that it started the Kings in opposit corners, behind a rank of 4 extra Pawns. (Which is also visible in the setup diagram of Guagamela Chess.) If you want to show a diagram of it, I would advice to do it in the Notes section. Then you can also discuss in detail what imperfections you percieve there that you wanted to improve on.

But it is not clear to me what the 'perfection' is. The 'Fortress Chess' setup looks much more convenient. A Knight on g1/b8 is awkwardly placed; it seems much better to swap those with the Rooks on e1/d8. And the Bishops in the original also seem more easy to develop.

This page has very simple rules and needs no further polishing. Please check it out for review. 

I don't know how people would feel about the name of this game but I hope it does make sense. 

There is nothing else to add here. This page should be ready.