Comments by makov333

I like (aesthetically) knight and pawn movement (both has original movement). Knight can leap, pawns captures not like moves. 

There cannot be invented real intuitive chess. Everyone has different intuition. Somebody doesn't like sliding pieces (rooks for example) etc.

I'm well. Invented two original chessvariants (Maorider Chess and Bungalow Shatranj) and some 'light' variants (not posted yet): Rookaba Shatranj, Rooks Chess.

Mighty Men:

Man (b,g lines) moves like a king (ferz + wazir).
Benz (c,f lines) moves like a bishop forward or like a
rook backward.
Pioneer (a,h lines) moves like a man or like a rook
forward or backward.
Cyborg (d line) moves like wazir, dabbaba, knight or alfil.
IT DOESN'T
MOVE LIKE FERZ.

Ok. I'll work on different openings for different armies. I'll post openings here.

Crazyhouse
Cardinal Chess
Alice Chess
Glinski's Hexagonal Chess
Embassy Chess

In my opinion Tournament must have some variant like: Fisher Random, Crazyhouse or Capablanca variant - it's a most well known and popular variants. I prefer Capa variant (Embassy) than Fisher Random.

Also Circular or Hex chess looks interesting and original to me. Because other variants are very easy to me. Circular Chess are easy to understand and it have originality, because Rooks are stronger than in chess, knights and bishops are weaker. Fergus, I want to offer not Embassy chess, but Circular Chess (or Hex). Because tournament must be an entry to different-type of board variants. What do you think?

'Knightmate'

Hm. Alice Chess looks more interesting. I think Alice Chess is not complicated at all.

Let's make voting with all variants from the comments (with all of mine (or one of mine) and Carlos Cetina Symmetric Chess). 
I think that variants like 'W-Flyers' is not interesting. I have this 'W-Flyer' in my Mighty Men Army, but I have whole different army. In 'W-Flyers' only one piece is different. It doesn't look interesting.

'The W-flyer might actually be stronger than a Rook, I suspect.)'

Ouch, this is a little different piece, than in my MM-Army. But I'm not against this piece. This variant is playable, I don't like that it has no big differencies from classic chess. 

'...in a way that will be very confusing to a Human player'

I cannot agree with you at all. Initially I have no problems with this board.
Maybe a little confusing in the beginning, but not 'very confusing'.

'no big differencies'

Not big, but no interesting differencies.

Yes, I prefer Circular Chess. And I think that Carlos Cetina choice 'Symmetric Chess' looks better than many other choices. I don't think that who is first is right. Who gives interesting variants and who will play this games in tournament must have right to choose variants.

I want to advertise this tournament on some russian sites. So variants must be interesting for players, not for inventors. Inventors likes their variants and has problems with critics on its. What I offer is not variant of mine (like Cardinal Chess), but interesting and original variant.

I want to describe what I want to see, not as a offer (I offered Circular
Chess), but as I want to see for beginners. 'The theme is a game that
is good for introducing Chess players to Chess variants.':

Fisher Random. It is a most well known chess variant.

Crazyhouse - also popular. Dropping ability can be very useful to
understand Shogi and other variants.

Weak pieces variant (Heavy Gravity Chess or Modern Shatranj or Hypermodern
Shatranj).

Eurasian Chess. It is a good way to understand cannons.

Circular or Hex chess (different type of board).

Capa Chess. Cardinals and Chancellors are used in many chessvariants.
Amazons are too strong and I don't like it, but it's only my preference.

In my opinion, such variants can give some popularity for tournament. If
another, tournament will be played by habitues of Game Courier, not by
beginners. Maybe I'm wrong.

'Hexagonal Chess has the advantage that
hexagonal variants are more common and more popular than circular variants.'

Yes, but some people have problem with piece moving on hex board. I had this problem with knights. Also Hex Bishop is problematic piece. Circular Chess is more simple and I think two fronts of attack gives to this game interesting possibilities.

'That leaves Knightmate, which may at least be a good introduction to having a royal
piece that is not a King.'

All variants are good. But is knightmate better than Crazyhouse? I don't think so. By playing Crazyhouse you can learn to drop.

'Gustav III's Chess is a good example.'

In my opinion it's a bad example. Two powerful Amazons on such board.... Hmm.

'Is it a good piece or not?'

Maybe it is a good piece, but not for 64 or 68 squares, and not two.

'There are thousands of variants that have never been tried.'

These variants can be played without tournament. There are no thousands of variants that match the criteria for this tournament's theme.

'In this tournament I propose that we only have variants which have never been tried
before.'

I cannot agree with such criteria.

Hypermodern Shatranj
Eurasian Chess
Circular Chess (or Hex Chess)
Ajax Chess 
Capa variant

I offer to change Knightmate for Fisher Random or Crazyhouse. It is most popular chessvariants in russian community. With such variants I hope my future advertising will work. With Knightmate and without Fisher Random or Crazyhouse it wouldn't work. 99%.

Also do H. G. Muller participate in tournament?!

Me, Nick, Jeremy and Carlos are test all variants by playing its in alphabetical order.
We've played 007 Chess. Now we plays 10 Directional... But many of these games is not for a such tournament for beginners.

I believe that two amazons gives big advantage for White. And any chessmaster know how to win this game. On our level it is more playable game. But Amazon is exotic piece, that can be played without tournament. Cardinal and Chancellor is used in more variants than Amazon. I've played Gustav III and won it.

If there is a problem which variant to choose: Capa or Gustav, lets vote. I vote for Capa. 

I'm not a fan of Fisher Random or Crazyhouse. But these games can give popularity for tournament. And then beginners will play 007, 008, Grand Amazon and many others on Game Courier.

'Vitya, if you know chess then you should understand that the Amazon is less wild in a cramped board situation. On a big board, however, it would have enormous scope.'

Cannot agree with you. Amazons knight move works fine on a smaller board.

Mirari, looks like you not a beginner in chess variants. :) 

If I understand correct Fergus idea is not in originality of variants, but as introduction to chessvariants... to main ideas of many variants.

'The reason is that it is too easy to force the amazons to get traded off early on, and then you find yourself playing what amounts to a standard chess position with queens traded off.'

We can play it and I can show you that is not easy to force...

'Looking at this list, the next three people who make a game courier preset enforcing the rules will get their game in this tournament.'

Ha-ha! :))) LOL!!!

'Vitya: Modern chess was suggested in this posting.'

It was said about Shatranj. Modern Shatranj.

'I think it’s perfectly fair to demand anyone who wants their variant played here to either make a full rules-enforcing game courier preset'

I'm not a programmer. It's not a big problem for Fergus, I hope.

'Anyhow, I thought Jose proposed Modern Chess a while ago.'

He proposed Ajax Chess or Ajax Random Chess.

On Circular Chess.

'Also, there is no en-passant capture. (This was because the inventor didn't like this rule.)' http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/circular.html

Ha-ha! Lol! En-passant is a important thing in chess. In Circular Chess where row of pawn is 4 not eight it's more important thing against drawish wall of pawns.
There is no problem do you like it or not. It's an important rule.
So, I cannot agree with the inventor of Circular Chess.

But it's not a big problem. We can play it without en-passant or with it... It's playable.

'...and it should be programmed on Game Courier before the start of the tournament. I am able to program the rules for games you may not be able to, but if I can't do it, and no one else can, then the game won't make it.'

You need to read more attentive. Nobody told that we'll play presets without rules enforcement. Question is who will program the rules?! As I understand Fergus can do this.

'18 rounds is very ambitious. If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants
then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's
not that time-demanding.'

Agree. 12 looks better.

'I change my choice for Euchess since it also can be useful as an introductory variant.'

Hm... What sense to play two variants with chancellors and cardinals only? (Capa variant and Euchess). Both are large variants. Yes, Euchess is larger, but main idea is the same.
Symmetric chess was interesting because of introducing bishop-conversion rule.

As Mats said: 'If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's not that time-demanding.' I agree with this.

'if anyone doesn’t like the games, or what not, they are free to withdraw from the tournament.'

I think it's not your problem.

Clarification of rules by Peter Gelman.

Flight: Movement From the Cloud Boards

'A disk starting movement on a Cloud square must note the color of the square first; it may fly to any empty square on the Earth board of the same color, or the other Cloud’s square of the same color if it is empty.'

For example, Red Monkey King is on R-101.
From R-101 Monkey King can fly to all White Earth squares: a1, a3, a5, a7; b2, b4, b6, b8, etc.
Also to White Goblin Cloud square R-100.

So, a player can move piece from his Cloud to opponent territory (5-8 ranks in this example).

'Why allowing null moves? Isn't that just like a 'pass'?'

Yes, it's something like that. But player must have an open line, a rook or a queen for that. If you have this (Made this specially) - why not? Logically, this move is correct on this board.

My board doesn't look so pretty!

'The one game I played,
against Graeme Neatham, I was in a constant state of panic.'

Joe, it's for the first time. Rooks and Queen are so mobile. Bishops are not mobile as in Chess. If they come from one part, it's difficult to replace them to other part for attack. Rooks need an open line. I think the game is more drawish, than Chess.

My opinion on pieces:

Knight - 2 pawns
Bishop - 2 pawns
Rook - 6 pawns
Queen - 9 pawns